A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma construção jurídica …A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma...
288
Tese Doutoramento em Ecologia Humana Novembro de 2017 Casa Comum da Humanidade A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma construção jurídica baseada na ciência Paulo Miguel Ferreira Magalhães
Transcript of A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma construção jurídica …A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma...
Tese Doutoramento em Ecologia Humana
Novembro de 2017
Casa Comum da Humanidade
A “Nossa Casa Comum” como uma construção jurídica baseada na ciência
Paulo Miguel Ferreira Magalhães
DECLARAÇÕES
Declaro que esta Tese é o resultado da minha investigação pessoal e independente. O seu conteúdo é original e todas as fontes consultadas estão devidamente mencionadas
no texto, nas notas e na bibliografia.
O Candidato,
__________________________
Lisboa, 6 de Novembro de 2017
Declaro que esta Tese se encontra em condições de ser apreciado pelo júri a designar.
A Orientadora
__________________________
A co-orientadora
__________________________
Lisboa, 6 de Novembro de 2017
Tese apresentada para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários
à obtenção do grau de Doutor em ECOLOGIA HUMANA,
realizada sob a orientação científica da Prof.ª Doutora Iva Miranda Pires e
a co-orientação da Prof.ª Doutora Alexandra Aragão
A presente investigação teve o apoio financeiro da Fondation Luso- Française Elise Senyarich
através de uma Bolsa de Doutoramento.
À Isaura, Abel, Náná, Joana, Francisco, Sofia, Pedro e Tita.
“Os filósofos do iluminismo serviram-se de um preceito simples, mas aparentemente
muito poderoso: Quanto mais capazes formos de usar a razão para entendermos o
mundo e para nos entendermos a nós próprios, mas capazes seremos de moldar a
história à nossa medida. Para controlarmos o futuro, é necessário que nos libertemos dos
hábitos e preconceitos do passado.”
Anthony Giddens
Agradecimentos Ao Prof. Doutor Viriato Soromenho-Marques, por ter sido o primeiro a caucionar com o seu nome o primeiro prefácio deste projeto. À Prof. Doutora Iva Miranda Pires, por ter sido a primeira a introduzir o projeto na Academia. Às Prof. Doutora Alexandra Aragão, Prof. Doutora Marta Chantal, Prof. Doutora Raquel Guimarães e Prof. Doutora Helena Mota, por terem sido as primeiras juristas a caucionar o projeto.
Resumo
As ciências demonstraram que o que está em causa não é "salvar o planeta", mas sim
assegurar a manutenção de um estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre para a humanidade.
Isso significa que um planeta fora desse estado favorável, não serve como nossa "Casa
Comum". A realidade é que nosso planeta não é apenas uma área geográfica com 510
milhões de km2. Se todos os planetas possuem uma área geográfica, apenas a Terra possui
um sistema intrinsecamente acoplado ao planeta físico, capaz de sustentar a vida tal como
a conhecemos. Do ponto de vista jurídico, o planeta possui apenas uma existência como
entidade territorial. Esta visão unidimensional exclui a expressão mais notável e vital da
natureza - o funcionamento do Sistema da Terrestre como o “software” que suporta a
vida. O Sistema Terrestre é um bem uno, global e intangível, que não encontra amparo
na rigidez do atual ordenamento jurídico. O conhecimento científico já identificou os
indicadores que determinam o estado deste Sistema, os chamados “Limites do Planeta”,
que definem as balizas que não devemos transgredir para manter o Sistema da Terrestre
dentro do Espaço de Operação Segura para a Humanidade. Este espaço qualitativo e
quantitativo de segurança é intangível e não-territorial, e constitui o nosso verdadeiro
Global Common existente no interior e além de todas as fronteiras. Do seu não
reconhecimento pelo Direito Internacional, resulta a sua invisibilidade no seio da
comunidade das nações e dos povos. A sua inexistência jurídica autoriza, pois, o seu uso
desregulado e a consequente tragédia do nosso bem comum global, reduzido à categoria
de “externalidade”.
Já há muito que as ciências jurídicas reconheceram a existência de bens jurídicos
intangíveis como solução para a proteção de determinados interesses ou bens que se
tornaram relevantes para as sociedades humanas. O património cultural imaterial da
UNESCO, o direito de autor, ou o valor intangível das empresas (onde frequentemente o
valor dos ativos intangíveis é incomparavelmente superior ao valor dos bens tangíveis)
são alguns exemplos.
A analogia entre estes objetos de direito intangíveis e o Sistema de Terrestre, pode ser
crucial não só para representar a funcionalidade global e indivisível do Sistema Terrestre
na comunidade internacional, como para dar visibilidade económica ao valor real dos
serviços intangíveis realizados pelos ecossistemas na manutenção dos ciclos
biogeofísicos, cujo valor é incomparavelmente superior ao valor tangível dos
ecossistemas naturais que os produzem.
Uma parte significativa do desafio de “Transformar o Mundo” passa pela possibilidade
de tornarmos o trabalho da biosfera visível na sociedade, nas ações humanas e nas
transações económicas e financeiras. Atualmente o valor da natureza só se torna visível
nas transações financeiras através da sua destruição e transformação em matérias-primas,
como ocorre com a madeira das florestas.
O objetivo é propor que o estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre característico do
Período do Holoceno seja reconhecido Património Comum Intangível da Humanidade. O
objetivo é o de promover este novo bem jurídico global como "plataforma de
coordenação", onde todas as externalidades positivas e negativas possam ser agregadas e
contabilizadas. Este novo objeto de governança global coexistirá com os regimes legais
das soberanias estaduais: um Condomínio Planetário. O condomínio é o único modelo
jurídico existente que não se limita a uma divisão dos elementos espaciais, mas reconhece
igualmente a existência de elementos não- espaciais funcionais (ex: eletricidade, água) e
que por isso é capaz de assegurar uma governação multi-level.
Se utilizarmos diferentes de tipos de divisão jurídica (funcional e espacial) é possível
a coexistência pacífica de dois regimes legais sobrepostos, mas articulados, no interior do
mesmo espaço físico. Com a devida adaptação de escala a teoria que resulta desta solução
poderia ter profundas implicações na organização jurídica das sociedades humanas nos
dois horizontes que partilham - a Casa Comum da Humanidade: por um lado as
jurisdições dos Estados (elementos territoriais) sobre o qual é possível aplicar convenções
jurídicas de divisão, e por outro, de forma acoplada e sobreposta, a salvaguarda do
Sistema Terrestre indivisível (elementos não-territoriais).
O reconhecimento deste bem intangível que nos une a todos numa escala global é
uma condição estrutural para tornar visíveis os fatores vitais que suportam a vida, e iniciar
um processo em que a manutenção permanente da Casa Comum não constitui um prejuízo
para quem realiza benefícios comuns. Esta é uma oportunidade para transformar as
pessoas e nações em sujeitos de uma humanidade concreta e realizar a transformação
civilizacional da passagem de uma comunidade de exploradores do Sistema Terrestre,
para uma comunidade de curadores e gestores do uso da nossa Casa Comum.
Palavras-chave: Património Comum da Humanidade, Natureza Intangível, Sistema Terrestre, Casa Comum da Humanidade, Bens Comuns Globais Intangíveis, Ecologia Humana, Direito do Ambiente, Governança Global, Limites do Planeta.
Abstract
Science has shown that what is at stake is not “saving the planet”, but rather ensuring
the continued favourable state of the Earth System for humanity. That means that a planet
beyond the favourable state cannot serve as our “Common Home”. The reality is that our
planet is not only a geographical area of 510 million km2. All planets have a geographical
area, but only Earth has a living system intrinsically coupled to the physical planet, able
to sustain life just as we know it. From a legal point view, the planet only has an existence
as a territorial entity. This one-dimensional vision excludes the most remarkable and vital
expression of nature - the functioning of the Earth System as the software which supports
life. The Earth System is a single, global and intangible asset, which finds no basis in the
rigidity of the current legal framework. Scientific knowledge has already identified the
indicators which determine the state of this System, the so-called “Planetary Boundaries”,
which cannot be exceeded in order to ensure that the Earth System remains within the
favourable state - the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. This qualitative and
quantitative safe space is intangible and non-territorial, and constitutes our real Global
Commons, existing within and beyond all borders. Its lack of acknowledgement by
International Law results in its invisibility within the community of nations and peoples.
Therefore, its legal non-existence authorises its deregulated use and consequent tragedy
for our global common asset, reduced to the category of “externality”.
Legal sciences have long acknowledged the existence of intangible legal assets as a
solution to protect certain interests or assets which became relevant to human societies.
UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage, copyrights, or the intangible value of companies
(where the value of intangible assets is often exceptionally higher than that of tangible
assets) are some examples.
The analogy between these intangible objects of law and the Earth System may be
crucial not only to represent the global and indivisible functionality of the Earth System
in the bosom of the international community, but also to lend economic visibility to the
real value of the intangible services provided by ecosystems and other features of the
Earth System (e.g., atmospheric and oceanic circulation) in maintaining global
biogeophysical and biogeochemical cycles, whose value is exceptionally higher than the
tangible value of the component systems which produce them.
A significant part of the challenge of “Transforming the World” entails the possibility
of making the work of the Earth System visible in society, human actions, and economic
and financial transactions. Nowadays, the value of nature only becomes visible in
financial transactions through its destruction and transformation into raw materials, as
happens with the timber of forests.
The objective is to put forward a proposal so that the favourable state of the Earth
System as a whole, which is represented by the current geological epoch, the Holocene,
is recognised as Intangible Common Heritage of Humanity. The objective is to promote
this new global legal asset as a “coordination platform”, where all positive and negative
externalities can be aggregated and accounted for. This new object of global governance
will coexist with the legal frameworks of state sovereignties: one Planetary
Condominium. The condominium is the only existing legal model which is not limited
to a division of spatial elements, but also recognises the existence of non-spatial
functional elements (e.g.: electricity, water), and, for that reason, is able to ensure multi-
level governance aimed at maintaining the integrity of the building as an integrated whole.
If we use different types of legal division (functional and spatial) it is possible to have
the peaceful coexistence of two overlapping, but coordinated, legal frameworks within
the same physical space. With the proper scale adjustment, the theory which results from
this solution could have profound meaning in the legal organisation of human societies
in the two horizons they share - the Common Home of Humanity: on the one hand, State
jurisdictions (territorial elements) over which it is possible to apply legal conventions of
division, and, on the other hand, coupled and overlapping, the safeguarding of the
indivisible Earth System (non-territorial elements).
The legal recognition of this intangible asset which unites us all at a global scale is
a structural condition to lend visibility to the vital factors which sustain life, and to start
a process in which the permanent maintenance of the Common Home will not be an
economical loss to those who provide common benefits. This is an opportunity to
transform peoples and nations into subjects of an actual humanity and to achieve
civilizational transformation, from a community of Earth System exploiters to a
community of Common Home curators and managers.
Keywords: Common Heritage of Humankind, Intangible Nature, Earth System, Common Home of Humanity, Intangible Global Commons, Human Ecology, Environmental Law, Global Governance, Planetary Boundaries.
Índice
Resumo ...................................................................................................................... 13
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 16
Índice .......................................................................................................................... 18 PARTE I ................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Motivação e Justificação para o Tema .......................................................................... 1 2. Metodologia e Objetivos gerais e específicos ............................................................... 6 a) Objetivos gerais ........................................................................................................... 6 b) Objetivos específicos ................................................................................................... 7
Capítulo I ............................................................................................................................. 9 Ecologia Humana – A Ciência do Conhecimento.................................................................. 9
1.1. Introdução ................................................................................................................ 9 1.2. Da Terra Incognita às Ciências do Sistema Terrestre ................................................ 13 1.3. A Ecologia Humana – Uma nova era no conhecimento? .......................................... 20 1.4. Uma Ecologia Humana à escala do Sistema Terrestre .............................................. 24 1.5. Uma Ecologia Humana à escala da Humanidade ...................................................... 27 1.6. Uma Ecologia Humana trans-temporal .................................................................... 31 1.7. Ecologia Humana – Uma ciência do Antropoceno como construtora de sínteses e soluções ........................................................................................................................ 36
Capítulo 2 .......................................................................................................................... 40 A Natureza Intangível ........................................................................................................ 40
2.1. O Património Intangível como o fio de Ariadne do Antropoceno ............................. 40 2.2. Organizar a fruição coletiva ..................................................................................... 42 2.3. Um sistema jurídico baseado numa visão do mundo obsoleta ................................. 45 2.4. A desmaterialização do Bem Ambiental .................................................................. 50 2.5 A natureza intangível como conexão entre Sistema Social e Sistema Terrestre. ........ 53
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 61 Global Free Riders ... ......................................................................................................... 61
3.1. Tragedy Without Territory....................................................................................... 61 3.2. Legal Black Hole ...................................................................................................... 67 3.3. The Greatest Market Failure.................................................................................... 69 3.4. Global Free Riders... Get It While You Can ............................................................... 70 3.5. A Long Looking-For Period....................................................................................... 72 3.6. The Inevitable Global and Multiple Approach .......................................................... 74 3.7. The Double Tragedy and Double Challenge ............................................................. 78
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 81 A New Object of Law – Attempt for a Legal Construction ................................................. 81
4.1. A Theoretical Gap.................................................................................................... 81 4.2. The Legal Nebula ..................................................................................................... 87 4.3. The “Whole” Problem ............................................................................................. 92 4.4. The Software/Hardware Relation ............................................................................ 95 4.5. A Space Without Territory ....................................................................................... 98 4.6. A Safe Space Without Territory ............................................................................. 101 4.7. From a Space of Concerns to a Heritage ................................................................ 105 4.8. Holocene State as a Heritage Protected by Law ..................................................... 106 4.9. An Evolutional Legal Living Space .......................................................................... 112 4.10. Applying CHM to the Earth System ...................................................................... 113 4.11. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 115
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................... 118 Earth Condominium – A legal model for the Anthropocene ............................................ 118
5.1. Political Impossibility? ........................................................................................... 118 5.2. Two Different Levels of the Earth System, Two Different Levels of Human Relations .................................................................................................................................... 120 5.3. A Heritage to Organize Relations ........................................................................... 121 5.4. Divide to Organize ................................................................................................. 123 5.5. Divide to Unite ...................................................................................................... 128 5.6. Symbiotic Sovereignty ........................................................................................... 135 5.7. From Complex to Symbiotic .................................................................................. 138 5.8. Earth System Stewardship ..................................................................................... 141 5.9. Final Remarks ........................................................................................................ 149
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................... 150 Earth Global Challenges Prize: A New Shape ................................................................... 150
6.1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. 150 6.2. MODEL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 153 6.2.1. The Planetary Condominium model: the conceptual framework for a new global governance. ................................................................................................................. 153 6.2.2. Realizing the Planetary Condominium model ..................................................... 157 6.2.3. Final Remarks: .................................................................................................... 166 6.3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA .......................................................................................... 168 6.3.1. Core Values ........................................................................................................ 168 6.3.2. Decision-making Capacity ................................................................................... 168 6.3.3. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 170 6.3.4. Resources and Financing .................................................................................... 171 6.3.5.Trust and Insight ................................................................................................. 173 6.3.6. Flexibility ............................................................................................................ 174 6.3.7. Protection against the abuse of power ............................................................... 174 6.3.8. Accountability .................................................................................................... 175
Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................................... 177
SOS TREATY – Safe Operating Space Treaty .................................................................... 177 7.1. PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................... 177 7.2. PART 1 – OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................ 182 7.3. PART 2 – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................. 183 7.4. PART 3 - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE INTANGIBLE NATURAL SPACE............... 187
PARTE II Common Home of Humanity Survey ................................................................. 203 8.1. O Projeto .............................................................................................................. 203 8.2. Metodologia da pesquisa ...................................................................................... 204 8.3. Perfil dos Entrevistados ......................................................................................... 206 8.4. RESULTADOS ......................................................................................................... 211 8.5. ANEXOS ................................................................................................................ 214
ÍNDICE DE FIGURAS Figura 1. The Holocene - Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GRIP) Figura 2. Planetary Boundaries Figura 3. Global Commons in the Anthropocene Figura 4. Earth System management regimes Figura 5. Hardware/Software relation and the Earth System Figura 6. Differences between Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) and Common Concern of Humankind (CCH) Figura 7. Comparative Analysis of Common Heritage of Mankind and Common Concern of Humankind Figura 8. Features of a possible evolution of CHM/CCH to a Common Intangible Natural Heritage of Humankind
1
PARTE I
INTRODUÇÃO
1. Motivação e Justificação para o Tema
Podemos afirmar que o período de estudos desta tese prolongou-se de forma continua
desde 2006. No entanto o motivo seminal deste projeto de construção de uma arquitetura
jurídica mais adequada ao funcionamento global do Sistema Terrestre teve origem ainda
anteriormente. Em Novembro de 2002 o acidente do petroleiro Prestige na costa galega
perto da fronteira portuguesa causou uma enorme maré negra, que se espalhou desde o
norte de Portugal até Vendée em França. Até aqui, nada de realmente novo ou diferente
relativamente a outras marés negras que infelizmente ocorreram já um pouco por todo
mundo. O momento iniciador da construção de um novo conceito, surge com a primeira
reação das autoridades espanholas, quando tentam rebocar o petroleiro para as águas
territoriais portuguesas, como se o petróleo passasse apenas a ser um problema português
e não continuasse a espalhar-se dois lados da fronteira... Analisando os motivos que estão
na origem desta disfuncionalidade jurídica entre a realidade ambiental e as construções
sociais, que levam a confundir as representações humanas com a própria realidade,
percebi que a origem primária desta disfunção se encontra no direito e que competirá em
primeira linha às ciência jurídicas encontrar soluções de adaptação entre as formas de
organização social e o funcionamento do planeta que habitamos e que pertencemos.
Tendo participado nas ações de limpeza que à época se realizaram no norte de
Portugal, voltando para casa depois de um longo dia de limpeza e reabilitação de aves
oleadas, ao abrir a caixa do correio encontrei uma conta de milhares de euros para pagar,
ao qual estava em anexo um orçamento relativo aos trabalhos de restauração no meu
condomínio.
2
Percebi então que a maioria desse montante era para o restauro de janelas que estão no
espaço interior do apartamento dos meus vizinhos da frente. Completamente intrigado,
comecei a estudar a estrutura legal de um condomínio. Quanto mais eu lia, mais se tornou
evidente que as referidas janelas não pertenciam ao vizinho que possuía a fração onde as
janelas estão localizadas, mas eram sim compropriedade de todos os meus vizinhos que
habitam o condomínio. Todos nós tínhamos não só uma titularidade comum sobre aquela
janela e vários outros elementos do prédio, bem como a correspondente responsabilidade
compartilhada pela sua manutenção, uma vez que a inexistência de manutenção destes
elementos se iria refletir na habitabilidade de todo o prédio. Ao estudar em detalhe a
construção legal que cercava a minha vida diária, percebi que esta estava cheia de
significados teóricos e possibilidades que questionavam tudo o que me havia sido
ensinado na Universidade ... Depois de alguns anos a tentar desvendar a complexidade
desse modelo, percebi que a solução ali presente, porque tinha surgido como resposta a
uma necessidade da vida real, nunca tinha sido devidamente dissecada pela doutrina nos
seus múltiplos significados e dimensões. Como tudo o que não tem explicação é
complexo, a doutrina espanhola chamara-lhe mesmo propriedade complexa. Hoje cada
vez tenho mais a certeza de que a ligação que fiz entre a mancha de petróleo que existia
de forma sobreposta com a linha imaginária que separa as águas territoriais e janela
comum no interior da casa do meu vizinho, foi o momento em que se colocava em causa
o paradigma de divisão de sobre o qual se alicerçava a disfunção entre o Sistema Terrestre
e as sociedades humanas, do qual são parte integrante.
O processo de investigação começa ainda durante o ano de 2003, dando origem à
publicação em 2007 do livro, “Condomínio da Terra – Das alterações climáticas a uma
nova conceção Jurídica do Planeta”, publicado pela Livraria Almedina, Coimbra. Em
2016 é publicado “SOS Treaty – Save Operating Space Treaty – A New Approach to
Managing Our Use of the Earth System, pela Cambridge Scholars Publishing, em parceria
com uma série de autores nacionais e estrangeiros, onde foram publicados de forma
integral os capítulos 3,4,5 e 7 desta tese. Nesta linha de desenvolvimento do projeto, em
Setembro de 2017 foi submetida uma proposta ao “Global Challenges Prize 2017: A New
Shape – Remodelling Global Cooperation, que constitui o Capítulo 6 desta Tese.
A linha de investigação pluridisciplinar realizada durante estes anos, embora tenha
dado origem a profundas evoluções na utilização e conjugação de instrumentos e
consequentemente nas soluções encontradas, não deixou nunca de ter como esqueleto
base as possibilidades oferecidas pelo modelo do condomínio, que ao fim deste período
3
julgo começar a ser desvendado na sua complexidade, e tornar-se simples e evidente o
porquê da sua potencialidade.
Percebemos então que:
1) Num condomínio não existe apenas uma divisão do espaço. Existe igualmente uma
divisão jurídica funcional relativa às funções essenciais: a estrutura de estabilidade, os
sistemas de uso comum (água, luz, elevadores...) e os elementos funcionais (escadas,
telhado, coberturas), que estão sobre o regime de propriedade comum. Quer isto dizer que
todos elementos que asseguram a habitabilidade e funcionalidade do prédio no seu todo,
e sobre quais não é possível nenhuma operação jurídica de divisão, nem mesmo abstrata,
são comuns. Só posteriormente a esta divisão funcional, é que se procedeu à divisão
jurídica abstrata dos espaços que irão ser objeto de direitos de propriedade privada.
2) Esta divisão funcional, tornava possível que no interior dos espaços sobre o regime de
propriedade privada, existissem elementos e sistemas e que estavam sobre o regime
jurídico de propriedade comum. Isto significa, que se utilizarmos diferentes de tipos de
divisão jurídica (funcional e espacial) é possível assegurar a coexistência pacífica de dois
regimes legais sobrepostos no interior do mesmo espaço físico.
3) Se acompanharmos esta dupla divisão, por um sistema de contributos diferenciados e
equitativos entre a cada um dos vizinhos, com o objetivo de assegurar a gestão
permanente do mesmo prédio materialmente indivisível, é possível harmonizar, conciliar
e tornar simbioticamente interdependentes os interesses individuais e comuns,
tendencialmente opostos e conflituantes.
4) Com a devida adaptação de escalas, a teoria que resulta desta solução poderia ter
profundos significados na organização jurídica das sociedades humanas à escala do
planeta - a Casa Comum da Humanidade: por um lado o planeta físico, geográfico e
territorial sobre o qual é possível realizar abstrações jurídicas de divisão, e por outro, de
forma acoplada e sobreposta, o Sistema Terrestre, uno e intangível, e sobre o qual não é
possível realizar nenhuma divisão legal nem de forma abstrata.
4
5) Esta teoria, porque permite uma reconfiguração das relações que se estabelecem em
torno da posse e uso de um mesmo bem, (em que a propriedade privada pode coexistir
com a propriedade comum) permite-nos imaginar novas soluções para harmonizar as
tensões entre o modelo económico que enaltece a divisão, a autonomia e a liberdade
individuais, com a sempre necessária ação coletiva para assegurar a manutenção do bem
comum global – Um Sistema Terrestre num estado favorável, e sobre o qual não é
possível realizar nenhum tipo de divisão. Por outras palavras, o condomínio é um modelo
de organização da interdependência, uma vez que só na prossecução do interesse comum,
é possível assegurar o direito de cada um.
Partindo desta linha de raciocínio, a matriz metodológica foi marcada por sucessivas
etapas de aproximação estratégica a várias áreas do conhecimento, integrando as duas
abordagens ideológicas dominantes, que foram até hoje consideradas opostas e
antagónicas no que diz respeito à estratégia de gestão de bens comuns. Partindo das
possibilidades abertas pelo modelo do condomínio, este projeto funcionou como uma
plataforma de encontro de muitas soluções já encontradas. Como afirmam Almeida et.al.,
(2010.10) “A falência das macro narrativas ideológicas, que afirmavam a excecionalidade
humana (Dunlap et al., 2002), desde o capitalismo ao comunismo, confronta-se com a
emergência do discurso ecológico. Este discurso reabilita a urgência de uma solidariedade
intergeracional e a íntima ligação entre a política e a economia, concorrendo para o
encontro de soluções e de responsabilidades coletivas. Contudo, se as questões ambientais
globais suscitam soluções globais, ou a concretização de um largo espectro de
compromissos internacionais, a experiência humana da existência é essencialmente
fenomenológica e associada às rotinas da vida quotidiana (Berger et al., 1985)”.
A descoberta e definição Safe Operating Space of Humankind, como espaço
biogeofísico relativo à estrutura de concentrações biogeoquímicas do Sistema Terrestre,
e, portanto, como espaço qualitativo não geográfico, possibilita-nos esse salto para o
global, essa ligação entre o local e global, entre economia e politica nas suas dimensões
locais e globais. Requer igualmente uma reorientação da perceção do que foi entendido
até hoje como “Casa Comum da Humanidade”: este espaço intangível, relativo às
condições biogeofísicas que suportaram o desenvolvimento das sociedades humanas, não
se refere ao planeta físico ou ao espaço geográfico/político, constituído pela soma das
diferentes áreas sob jurisdição dos Estados e das áreas remanescentes. O conceito de Casa
Comum tem subjacente as condições de habitabilidade da Casa na sua totalidade, que
existem em simultâneo no interior e exterior de todas as soberanias. Neste sentido a Casa
5
Comum da Humanidade não deverá ser entendida como o planeta geográfico de 510
milhões de km2, mas antes deve ser representada através do favorable well-defined state
do Sistema Terrestre, relativo ao período geológico do Holoceno. E é esta dimensão
qualitativa que escapa à abordagem territorial. Em termos geográficos um oceano morto
e acidificado pode continuar a ser objeto de divisões jurídicas entre soberanias, mas não
pode servir como suporte da vida marinha e da humanidade no seu todo. Da mesma forma
um planeta com um estado do Sistema Terrestre indesejável que não é capaz de suportar
as necessidades ecológicas da espécie humana, também não pode ser considerado como
nossa Casa Comum.
Esta dimensão funcional e qualitativa, será então a linha mestra de toda esta
investigação, que busca nos novos conhecimentos sobre o funcionamento do Sistema
Terrestre, a base científica sobre a qual se vai aplicar o modelo do condomínio, recorrendo
sempre a conceitos e institutos jurídicos já construídos, e adaptando-as a esta realidade.
Por isso, para além das ciências do Sistema Terrestre, integram-se conceitos como
Património da Humanidade, intangibilidade de objetos jurídicos, direito internacional,
gestão de bens comuns, economia ecológica, valorização de serviços de ecossistemas,
métricas e sistemas de contabilidade ecológica e o debate sobre os direitos das futuras
gerações.
Na essência iremos procurar construir um objeto de direito que proceda a uma leitura
mais aproximada da realidade ambiental, propondo-se uma cobertura jurídica
internacional ao Sistema Terrestre, tornando possível desta forma, distinguir a dimensão
espacial do planeta (o hardware), do sistema funcional global (Software) que suporta a
vida na Terra.
Esta dimensão funcional e qualitativa do sistema terrestre pode ser determinante para
se encontrarem os fundamentos sobre os quais se pode construir a Casa Comum que o
Papa Francisco refere na sua Encíclica “Laudato Si”. No seu entender essa Casa Comum
ainda “não está ainda construída”, quer isso dizer, que a nossa Casa Comum, não será o
planeta físico ou geográfico, mas sim uma construção humana que potencie a construção
simultânea de harmonia no interior das sociedades humanas e entre estas o Sistema
Terrestre. La Cura Della Casa Comune, será então o cuidado na manutenção da estrutura
de concentrações biogeoquímicas que determinam as condições favoráveis à família
humana e a todas as espécies que partilham connosco as mesmas necessidades ecológicas.
Cuidar da Casa, implica criar as condições estruturais prévias para uma ação coletiva
6
global. Por isso a Casa Comum da Humanidade, será construção jurídica baseada na
ciência.
2. Metodologia e Objetivos gerais e específicos
a) Objetivos gerais
Assumindo-se a ecologia humana como área de investigação transdisciplinar privilegiada
para a análise das interações entre os sistemas sociais e sistemas ecológicos, e que nos
pode proporcionar uma leitura abrangente das mudanças sociais e ambientais que
resultam dessa interação, iremos proceder a um possível desenho de compatibilização das
características do funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre com a organização política e social
da comunidade global humana. Esta abordagem será, na sua essência, realizada através
da procura de um novo objeto de direito que proceda a uma leitura mais aproximada da
realidade funcional do Sistema Terrestre, isto é, na busca de elementos de conexão e
coerência entre o sistema jurídico e o sistema ecológico, especialmente através do recurso
às recentes descobertas desenvolvidas pelas ciências naturais e à utilização, por analogia,
aos objetos jurídicos intangíveis e ao modelo do condomínio. A abordagem escolhida é
a de estudar e desenvolver a intangibilidade jurídica como eixo norteador capaz de
traduzir e representar a essa qualidade intangível do bem ambiental global – o estado
favorável do Sistema Terrestre. Sobre o assunto da intangibilidade jurídica César Garcia
(2016.15) afirma: “Tamanha mudança somente se torna possível quando se deixa de
pensar a realidade somente a partir do Direito, para permitir que o próprio Direito seja
repensado a partir da realidade.”
Ao desmaterializarmos a natureza através do reconhecimento de Património Comum
Natural Intangível da Humanidade, ou para ser mais correto, ao aceitarmos que a natureza
possui elementos não territoriais, poderemos distinguir o espaço soberano onde a
infraestrutura natural está localizada, dos serviços e funções incorpóreas que presta no
seio do sistema natural global, abrindo portas à valoração destes serviços imateriais.
Esta será a base jurídica que permitirá a construção de um sistema de contabilidade
dos diferentes contributos de cada agente para o sistema natural comum que suporta a
vida na Terra, e a construção de uma economia onde os ativos intangíveis naturais devem
7
ter um papel central, e que desta forma poderia resultar numa harmonização entre os
fluxos económicos e os fluxos ecológicos.
A proposta de pensar a terra como um imenso condomínio, tem como objetivo central
aproveitar uma ferramenta jurídica já amplamente testada de sobreposição de dois
regimes legais distintos no interior do mesmo espaço, conciliando desta forma interesses
individuais e coletivos, fornecendo assim uma base jurídica global que com potencial
para enquadrar e contextualizar globalmente os interesses individualizados de cada um
dos Estados com os interesses superiores de toda a Humanidade.
Esses interesses superiores existem, independentemente de não ser possível identificar
os sujeitos de direito em relações futuras e incertas. Podemos não identificar em concreto
os sujeitos, mas sabemos que algumas condições básicas vitais de habitabilidade do
planeta são necessárias pelo simples facto de virem a ser seres humanos. Na certeza de
que as gerações futuras possuirão existência em determinado momento histórico, e que
os direitos humanos não estão ligados a um individuo em particular, mas uma humanidade
que se alarga para lá da existência individual no espaço e no tempo, propomos representar
estes interesses através de um património comum natural intangível. Esse será o legado
da transmissão da Casa Comum, de geração em geração.
b) Objetivos específicos
1 – Demonstrar que a gestão do uso do Sistema Terrestre implica a organização de uma
fruição coletiva à escala global, e que através do modelo do condomínio é possível
compatibilizar um regime de soberanias territoriais independentes, com a gestão comum
dos elementos não territoriais.
2- Demonstrar, que tal como noutras áreas em que o direito se viu obrigado a reconhecer
juridicamente a existência de bens intangíveis para poder cumprir a sua função
harmonizadora de relações, é chegado o tempo de o direito reconhecer a existência de um
bem jurídico intangível global relativo à natureza, como plataforma a partir da qual deve
montar um esquema regulador das relações entre indivíduos, Estados e comunidades,
numa escala global.
8
3 – Para tal, o direito deve recorrer às últimas evoluções da Ciências do Sistema Terrestre,
e com base no Safe Operating Space of Humankind, construir um objeto de representação
intelectual relativamente a uma realidade natural, como bem jurídico intangível que existe
no interior e exterior de todos os Estados, como pressuposto estrutural da construção de
uma sociedade sustentável.
4 – Entre os instrumentos jurídicos existentes, aquele que melhor se adequa às
características do “bem ambiental global” é o Património Comum da Humanidade. Neste
sentido iremos propor uma evolução do Common Concern of Humankind para o
reconhecimento do estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre como Património Natural
Intangível da Humanidade, definindo dessa forma um bem jurídico global autónomo.
5- Usar o novo património natural intangível, como o “território virtual” em torno do qual
a comunidade humana global se organiza, e onde os interesses das gerações futuras
poderão estar representados.
6- Usar este novo património intangível como instrumento legal para internalizar as
chamadas “externalidades económicas”, positivas e negativas.
7- Com base nesta internalização, tornar possível a visibilidade económica destes fatores
vitais, conectando desta forma os ciclos biogeofísicos com os ciclos económicos.
8 – Com base no novo Património Comum, promover a reativação do Conselho de Tutela
da Nações Unidas, cujo novo mandato teria como objetivo principal a manutenção do
espaço de segurança da Humanidade.
9
Capítulo I
Ecologia Humana – A Ciência do Conhecimento
“Pensar de uma maneira inovadora para poder inovar a própria realidade" Viriato Soromenho-Marques (1994:26).
1.1. Introdução
A natureza, sabemo-lo hoje, é não-linear, e como tal traz consigo a ideia de
multiplicidade, abertura, adaptabilidade, irreversibilidade e complexidade (Brown 1994
:420).
Nas primeiras palavras do prefácio da “Introdução ao Pensamento Complexo” Morin
introduz-nos um pensamento que não abandonamos mais sempre nos confrontamos
com a palavra complexo: “Pedimos legitimamente ao pensamento que dissipe as brumas
e as obscuridades, que ponha ordem e clareza no real, que revele as leis que o governam.
A palavra complexidade só pode exprimir o nosso embaraço, a nossa confusão, a nossa
incapacidade de definir de maneira simples, de nomear de maneira clara, de pôr ordem
nas nossas ideias”. Mais à frente afirma: “A palavra complexidade é uma palavra
problema, não uma palavra solução” (Morin1990: 7).
Na época em que estas palavras foram escritas, os conhecimentos sobre as instruções
operacionais intangíveis que determinam a forma como o sistema terrestre se auto-
organiza e regula eram praticamente nulos e sua existência, ainda que num plano
meramente teórico e conceptual, suscitava autênticos coros de rejeição. A hipótese de
Gaia – em que James Lovelock (1991) formula pela primeira vez a possibilidade de o
10
Planeta Terra funcionar como um sistema vivo que se auto-regula, foi considerada pela
Revista Science de 19 de Abril de 1991, uma teoria “anticientífica”, “perigosa”, “pura
fantasia”.
Hoje, depois de desvendados os core drivers que determinam o funcionamento do
Sistema Terrestre, os cientistas do sistema global - os Earth System Scientists - continuam
a defini-lo como um sistema altamente complexo, por duas ordens de razões: a) por lado
existem ainda muitas interconexões desconhecidas, b) por outro, relativamente às
interconexões já conhecidas, os efeitos cascata originados pela introdução de alterações
nos seus componentes, que não podem ser analisados num modelo simples de causa-
efeito, resultam em efeitos emergentes não conhecidos. Neste nível nenhum fator atua de
forma isolada, antes pelo contrário, é um sistema onde "tudo depende de tudo" e onde
“tudo implica com tudo”. Esta tautologia tem na escala global o seu campo perfeito de
aplicação.
Mas se para chegar a esta consciência da complexidade e de que "tudo depende de
tudo", que só agora começa a ser reconhecidamente aceite, teve de se percorrer um "longo
caminho onde apareceriam em primeiro lugar os limites, as insuficiências e as carências
do pensamento simplificador, depois as condições nas quais não podemos evitar o desafio
complexo" (Morin1990:8). Na esteira do pensamento disjuntor cartesiano, construímos
uma estrutura de organização das sociedades humanas baseada no paradigma no
conhecimento segmentado, limitativo e isolador de cada área do saber, e que separa e
oculta tudo o que liga, interage, interconecta, tornando impercetível o erro e as falhas das
interligações. “Infelizmente, a visão mutiladora e unidimensional paga-se cruelmente nos
fenómenos humanos: a mutilação corta a carne, deita sangue, espalha sofrimento. A
incapacidade de conceber a complexidade da realidade antroposocial na sua micro-
dimensão (o ser individual) e na sua macrodimensão (o conjunto planetário da
Humanidade) conduziu a infinitas tragédias e conduz-nos à tragédia suprema” (Morin
1990:19).
O “império dos princípios de disjunção, de redução e de abstração”, cujo conjunto
Morin chama de “paradigma de simplificação” isolou radicalmente, na opinião de Morin,
cada um dos três grandes campos do conhecimento científico, relativamente a cada um
dos outros - a física, a biologia, as ciências do homem.
Com Hobbes, o paradigma cartesiano invade também o direito e este torna-se numa
arte de estabelecer limites, de fazer a separação das coisas, de desenhar fronteiras
abstratas, naturalmente ocultando a realidade então desconhecida do Sistema terrestre,
11
que existe para além da dimensão territorial do planeta e cuja única escala de
funcionamento é a global. É igualmente sob a visão ainda dominante do paradigma da
divisão, que emerge um modelo económico que defende que só o regime de propriedade
privada em associação aos mecanismos de mercado está apto a ultrapassar a inevitável
“Tragédia dos Bens Comuns” (Hardin 1968), uma vez que nesta linha de raciocínio
apenas as pessoas com propriedade privada seriam motivadas a proteger suas terras do
uso desregulado. A todos os níveis os sistemas de conhecimento e de organização social
foram formatados para definir limites e não partes comuns. A formatação social daqui
resultante pode-se resumir desta forma: a) tudo o que interliga e ultrapassa fronteiras é
socialmente invisível; b) pensar global é uma quimera desconectada da realidade social;
c) representar socialmente o global, uma impossibilidade técnica e categórica.
Nesta linha de pensamento compreende-se que ainda hoje o que é o comum seja
apenas o remanescente das divisões operadas pelas soberanias ou pela propriedade
privada.
As falhas estruturais resultantes desta ausência de interconexões no próprio sistema
de conhecimento e do sistema e organização social, deram origem a um processo interno
de erosão, como sequência lógica da incapacidade destes sistemas em explicarem
adequadamente a realidade natural e social. O resultado foi o alargamento da “fatalidade”
da lógica da “Tragédia do Comuns” a uma realidade oculta e “externa” - a escala global.
As alterações climáticas, como fenómeno mais visível de toda a ameaça ao estado do
Sistema Terrestre, são uma Tragédia dos Comuns à escala global – a disrupção dos
mecanismos de suporte da vida - a Tragédia Suprema, nas palavras de Morin.
No plano jurídico, como plano estrutural da organização das sociedades humanas, esta
territorial obsession (Taylor 2016:120), tem como expressão máxima a abstração jurídica
de considerar o planeta apenas num plano unidimensional, onde este corresponde a uma
área total de 510.000.000 de km2 que foi dividida entre as soberanias e onde os Global
Commons são apenas os remanescentes destas divisões. Este continua a ser o modelo
único que determina o ponto a partir do qual todas as realidades são analisadas.
Como afirma Soromenho-Marques (1994:17) “O homem age antes de saber”. Mas
quer queiramos ou não, foi esta separação/organização/isolamento que possibilitou
alcançar uma espantosa rede de informações sobre o mundo, que nos permite agora, quase
como observadores externos, questionar todo o caminho já realizado.
Na posse de tantas informações parcelares, podemos agora ambicionar passar da
informação ao conhecimento do todo e, dar um passo decisivo no percurso civilizacional
12
da humanidade. Para isso, é necessária uma operação, uma conexão entre a complexidade
objetiva da natureza e a nossa capacidade subjetiva de a representar no nosso sistema
social.
É nesta conjuntura que surge a Ecologia Humana, que como próprio nome indica,
pretende ser um espaço de conhecimento onde as informações provindas de todas as
ciências, naturais ou humanas, se encontram e de alguma forma formarão um
conhecimento global e integrado.
Mas como é evidente, um projeto de construir uma ciência unificadora, num contexto
social profundamente enraizado em conhecimento espartilhado, não é tarefa fácil.
Embora seja hoje recorrente a utilização das palavras inter, trans ou multidisciplinaridade,
a utilização de palavras por si só não significa que esse conhecimento integrado seja uma
realidade. Em muitos casos, o exercício de nomeação destas palavras corresponde apenas
a uma proclamação da necessidade de encontrar uma ideia para um problema ainda não
resolvido, como metodologia que incentive ao diálogo entre pessoas que foram formadas
em diferentes silos, mas que muitas vezes são incapazes de correr o risco de sair da sua
área de especialização, da sua zona de segurança e criar um conhecimento
verdadeiramente integrado. A inter, trans ou multidisciplinaridade nasceram como quase-
conceitos, em que a sua validade atual se encontra como um inegável e necessário projeto
futuro ainda não realizado.
No entanto, este dever-ser futuro confronta-se ainda hoje com problemas de afirmação
relativamente às teias das compartimentações dos saberes estabelecidos, onde o
“transdisciplinar” não encaixa nos modelos de validação e delimitação existentes. Como
Iva Pires refere, a Ecologia Humana é uma ciência altamente especializada mantendo, ao
mesmo tempo, uma visão holística, abrangente e transdisciplinar, condição que a torna
complexa e mesmo difícil de ser definida (Pires 2011).
Neste caminho de afirmação para Mcharg (1984: 53) “O principal desafio que se
coloca à ecologia humana é da capacidade de síntese dos processos físicos, biológicos,
sociais, económicos e culturais para compreender as pessoas os lugares, observar as
relações sistémicas e comentá-las”. Quando o projeto em causa tem como objetivo
interconectar as informações e transformá-las em conhecimento, parece-nos que não
poderemos fazer depender a sua validação do cabal preenchimento do princípios
estruturais formais das metodologias científicas herdadas do paradigma da disjunção -
onde se constatou que “os modos simplificadores do conhecimento mutilam mais do que
13
exprimem as realidades ou fenómenos que relatam, e se torna evidente que produzem
mais confusão que esclarecimento...”(Morin 1990:7).
Mas o processo de transformação da informação em conhecimento é um longo
percurso, que por ser inevitável, começou já a ser feito parcelarmente em várias áreas
científicas, entre quais, a que consideramos mais evoluída e de maior relevância, será a
das ciências naturais – as chamadas ciências do Sistema Terrestre - onde a biologia não
está separada da química, matemática, geologia, paleontologia, climatologia ou da física.
Os ciclos biogeofísicos globais, pela sua própria formulação, são um sinal evidente da
unificação dos saberes na única e verdadeira escala em que podemos transformar
informação em conhecimento – a escala global. Esta evolução inevitável para entender e
representar o “todo global”, está ainda longe de possuir uma lógica consistente à escala
das ciências humanas.
1.2. Da Terra Incognita às Ciências do Sistema Terrestre
Com a visão do Príncipe Infante D. Henrique foi possível iniciar o processo de
transformar a Terra incognita (termo utilizado na cartografia dos séculos XV/XVI para
assinalar as regiões nunca mapeadas ou documentadas) em Terra conhecida. Esta epopeia
de descoberta culmina de alguma forma com a viagem de Fernão de Magalhães, onde
pela primeira vez na história se pôde voltar ao ponto de origem sem voltar para trás, e se
percebeu a forma e os limites físicos da nossa Casa Comum. Sabemos hoje, que este passo
de gigante na história da perceção que a espécie humana tem do planeta que habita, era
apenas ao nível do espaço geográfico.
Depois das “Terra Incognitas” terem desaparecido dos nossos mapas, tivemos que
esperar até à segunda metade do Século XX para perceber que para além do planeta na
sua dimensão geográfica, física e palpável, existia um sistema funcional global, cujo o
modo de funcionamento estava ainda por descobrir. Quando Lovelock percebeu, nos
finais dos anos 60 do Séc. XX que os CFC’s emitidos para a atmosfera não desapareciam
no espaço infinito e acumulavam-se nos polos, uma nova realidade se revelou. De passo
em passo a ciência foi desvendando o nível superior de integração do Sistema Terrestre,
de interconexões globais de difícil definição.
14
Com o desenvolvimento exponencial das ciências do Sistema Terrestre ocorrido nos
últimos 25 anos e a evolução das observações da Terra realizadas a partir do espaço, o
sistema incrivelmente complexo do planeta que habitamos transformou-se numa
realidade que podemos observar em tempo real, como espectadores externos.
Ao juntarmos a informação obtida partir do espaço com a informação recolhida a
partir do solo e do gelo (por exemplo a paleontologia do clima), tornou-se possível
reconstruir a história da atmosfera e todo o Sistema Terrestre. Ao longo da história do
nosso planeta, foram muitas as diferentes estruturas de composições químicas da
atmosfera e dos oceanos, que deram origem a diferentes balanços energéticos e
equilíbrios termodinâmicos, que por sua vez resultaram em diferentes estados do Sistema
Terrestre. O acesso a esta informação permitiu-nos a compreender a verdadeira situação
única que caracterizou o período de estabilidade climática dos últimos 11.700 anos no
Planeta Terra, o chamado o período geológico do Holoceno.
Se é a partir de Portugal que saem muitas das naus nas viagens oceânicas dos
séculos XV e XVI que iniciam o processo de reconhecimento do espaço geográfico global
da nossa Casa Comum, não deixa de ser interessante o facto de a unificação das ciências
naturais, e o consequente processo de decifração do funcionamento do sistema terrestre,
ter ligações com Portugal, como afirma Will Steffen, Executive-Director do IGBP
(International Geosphere-Biospehere Program) e editor principal do “Global Change and
the Earth System” de 2004 (considerado ainda hoje o estudo mais abrangente sobre o
Sistema Terrestre) : “In fact, this rapidly emerging knowledge of the Earth as a single,
integrated system also has some interesting connections to Portugal. One the first
conceptualization in the contemporary era of the Earth as a system was by James
Lovelock, who used the name “Gaia” (name of the Greek Goddess of Earth) for the Earth
System. This, of course, is the name of the city that sits across the Douro River from Porto,
and the combination of the twin cities Porto and Gaia formed the basis for the name of
the country as Portugal.
Arguably the most influential international scientific body in the development of the
concept of the Earth System has been the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
(IGBP). Interestingly, the most critical meeting of the IGBP Scientific Meeting was held
in 1999 in Estoril, Portugal1. There the Committee determined the objective, scope and
work plan for the production of the IGBP synthesis project, which resulted in the book
1http://www.igbp.net/download/18.950c2fa1495db7081e131/1416232597277/NL_371999.pdf
15
“Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure”, still one of the best
syntheses of Earth System science. The Estoril meeting also initiated the planning for the
2001 Amsterdam Conference, which was the world’s largest global change scientific
conference up to that time.
The Estoril meeting also featured an explicit link to Ferdinand Magellan and the age
of Portuguese exploration. The IGBP Scientific Committee visited the Portuguese
Academy of Sciences in Lisbon, where the scientists had the fortune to see the original
navigational maps of Ferdinand Magellan, where for the first time the islands of Japan
appear on a map in the western world.
Inspired by this link to the great age of global exploration, the IGBP Chairman Berrien
Moore III, as he looked out over the Atlantic Ocean from the conference room in Estoril,
challenged the IGBP scientific community to go out on their own voyage of scientific
exploration to understand our home planet as a single system – our own life support
system.
So, from the perspective of Earth System science, it would be truly fitting for the
Common Home of Humankind to be located in Portugal, and in Porto in particular”
Como referido, esta 14ªª reunião Scientific Commitee do IGBP que decorreu entre os
dias 23 a 27 de Fevereiro de 1999 no Estoril, esteve na origem da evolução do conceito
avançado por Lovelock, que viria a resultar numa abordagem integrada e pluridisciplinar
no âmbito das ciências naturais ao Sistema Terrestre como um único todo. Esta evolução
resultou na prática num processo gradual de unificação das ciências naturais – que estão
na base e origem das chamadas Ciências dos Sistema Terrestre.
Na sequencia da reunião do Estoril, e numa parceria do IGBP e de outros programas
internacionais de mudança global, ficou decidida a realização de uma grande conferência
em Amsterdão em 2001, que marcou em definitivo a formalização desta unificação
científica. A conferência produziu a histórica Declaração de Amsterdão sobre Ciência do
Sistema da Terrestre, que reproduzimos aqui:
16
The Declaration2 The scientific communities of four international global change research programs - the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme
(WCRP) and the international biodiversity programme DIVERSITAS - recognise that, in addition
to the threat of significant climate change, there is growing concern over the ever-increasing
human modification of other aspects of the global environment and the consequent
implications for human well-being.
Basic goods and services supplied by the planetary life support system, such as food, water,
clean air and an environment conducive to human health, are being affected increasingly by
global change.
Research carried out over the past decade under the auspices of the four programmes to
address these concerns has shown that:
• The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical,
chemical, biological and human components. The interactions and feedbacks between
the component parts are complex and exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial
variability. The understanding of the natural dynamics of the Earth System has
advanced greatly in recent years and provides a sound basis for evaluating the effects
and consequences of human-driven change.
• Human activities are significantly influencing Earth's environment in many ways in
addition to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Anthropogenic changes to
Earth's land surface, oceans, coasts and atmosphere and to biological diversity, the
water cycle and biogeochemical cycles are clearly identifiable beyond natural
variability. They are equal to some of the great forces of nature in their extent and
impact. Many are accelerating. Global change is real and is happening now.
• Global change cannot be understood in terms of a simple cause-effect paradigm.
Human-driven changes cause multiple effects that cascade through the Earth System
in complex ways. These effects interact with each other and with local- and regional-
scale changes in multidimensional patterns that are difficult to understand and even
more difficult to predict. Surprises abound.
• Earth System dynamics are characterised by critical thresholds and abrupt changes.
Human activities could inadvertently trigger such changes with severe consequences
for Earth's environment and inhabitants. The Earth System has operated in different
states over the last half million years, with abrupt transitions (a decade or less)
sometimes occurring between them. Human activities have the potential to switch the
Earth System to alternative modes of operation that may prove irreversible and less
2http://www.igbp.net/about/history/2001amsterdamdeclarationonearthsystemscience.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001312.html
17
hospitable to humans and other life. The probability of a human-driven abrupt change
in Earth's environment has yet to be quantified but is not negligible.
• In terms of some key environmental parameters, the Earth System has moved well
outside the range of the natural variability exhibited over the last half million
years at least. The nature of changes now occurring simultaneously in the Earth
System, their magnitudes and rates of change are unprecedented. The Earth is
currently operating in a no-analogue state.
On this basis, the international global change programmes urge governments, public and
private institutions and people of the world to agree that:
• An ethical framework for global stewardship and strategies for Earth System
management are urgently needed. The accelerating human transformation of the
Earth's environment is not sustainable. Therefore, the business-as-usual way of
dealing with the Earth System is not an option. It has to be replaced ¬ as soon as
possible ¬ by deliberate strategies of good management that sustain the Earth's
environment while meeting social and economic development objectives.
• A new system of global environmental science is required. This is beginning to evolve
from complementary approaches of the international global change research
programmes and needs strengthening and further development. It will draw strongly
on the existing and expanding disciplinary base of global change science; integrate
across disciplines, environment and development issues and the natural and social
sciences; collaborate across national boundaries on the basis of shared and secure
infrastructure; intensify efforts to enable the full involvement of developing country
scientists; and employ the complementary strengths of nations and regions to build
an efficient international system of global environmental science.
The global change programmes are committed to working closely with other sectors of society
and across all nations and cultures to meet the challenge of a changing Earth. New partnerships
are forming among university, industrial and governmental research institutions. Dialogues
are increasing between the scientific community and policymakers at a number of levels.
Action is required to formalise, consolidate and strengthen the initiatives being developed. The
common goal must be to develop the essential knowledge base needed to respond effectively
and quickly to the great challenge of global change.
A consequência imediata deste marco histórico foi o recente desenvolvimento
exponencial das Ciências do Sistema Terrestre com a sua abordagem interdisciplinar e
global, proporcionando-nos informações sobre a natureza e os limites da Época do
18
Holoceno, como o único estado do Sistema da Terra que possui, com certeza, as
condições ecológicas necessárias para suportar sociedades humanas complexas e
contemporâneas.
Com esta nova abordagem global das ciências naturais, ficou claramente demonstrado
que o grande desafio ambiental será o de manter um estado relativamente estável e
favorável do Sistema Terrestre.
Figura 1. Record of δ18O per mil (scale on left) from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GRIP) ice core, a proxy for atmospheric temperature over Greenland (approximate temperature range on oC relative to Holocene average is given on the right, showing the relatively stable Holocene climate during the past ca. 10,000 years and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (numbered) during the preceding colder glacial climate (Ganopolski and Rahmstorf 2001). Note the relative stability of temperature for the last 11,700 years (the Holocene) compared to the earlier ice age period. (Steffen2016:24)
Esta afirmação significa também que um Planeta com um Sistema Terrestre fora desse
estado favorável, não serve como nossa “Casa Comum”, o que tem como consequência
imediata a desterritorialização do bem ambiental e a assunção da escala que vai
determinar todos os processos locais: a escala global.
A comunidade científica tentou responder ao desafio de entender e medir este espaço
qualitativo e quantitativo, não-territorial, intangível e funcional, desenvolvendo o
19
conceito das Planetary Boundaries – os limites do planeta (Planetary Boundaries)
(Steffen et al., 2015, Rockström et al., 2009). Esses limites são baseados nas propriedades
intrínsecas do próprio sistema terrestre e que se definem através de uma combinação de
indicadores (core drivers) que no seu conjunto são as instruções operacionais intangíveis
que determinam o modo como o Sistema Terrestre se auto-organiza e regula. Por outras
palavras, este conjunto de indicadores será o “código genético” do funcionamento do
sistema terrestre que traduz em números as intuições iniciais de Lovelock, descrevendo
o estado do sistema terrestre, através de um conjunto de limites cientificamente
estabelecidos que definem um estado do Sistema da Terrestre baseado nos últimos 11.700
anos – a época do Holoceno - limites que devemos respeitar para manter o Sistema da
Terrestre nesse estado favorável.
Figura 2. The current status of the control variables for seven of the nine planetary boundaries. Green zone is the
safe operating space (below the boundary), yellow represents the zone of uncertainty (increasing risk), and red is the high-risk zone. The planetary boundary itself lies at the inner heavy circle. The control variables have been normalized for the zone of uncertainty (between the two heavy circles); the center of the figure therefore does not represent values of 0 for the control variables. The control variable shown for climate change is atmospheric CO2 concentration. Processes for which global-level boundaries cannot yet be quantified are represented by gray wedges; these are atmospheric aerosol loading, novel entities and the functional role of biosphere integrity. Source: Steffen et al. (2015a).
A comunidade científica denominou estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre, como Safe
20
Operating Space of Humankind. Este “espaço” de operação segura para a humanidade é
global, intangível, totalmente interdependente, indivisível e, portanto, um inultrapassável
e incontornável bem comum. O conjunto destas características, tornou-se num dos fatores
que mais desafia uma organização social ainda dominada por uma visão que considera
que a gestão de bens comuns resulta numa inevitável “Tragédia dos Bens Comuns”. Na
impossibilidade de dividir o bem, a solução tem sido a de tentar minorar a dimensão da
tragédia sem, no entanto, se proceder à necessária reorganização interna das relações
imposta pelo uso compartilhado de um bem finito, indivisível e intangível. Sabemos hoje
que existem alternativas e que em determinadas condições a ação coletiva é uma
possibilidade.
1.3. A Ecologia Humana – Uma nova era no conhecimento?
Ainda que numa fase de consolidação, as ciências do Sistema Terrestre são resultado do
confronto inevitável entre a segmentação parcelar das informações obtidas pelas várias
ciências da natureza e o suprassistema da escala global, onde tudo interage e onde nada
existe de forma isolada. Porque esta subida de escala é uma realidade incontornável para
que se “dissipe as brumas e as obscuridades, que ponha ordem e clareza no real, que
revele as leis que o governam” (Morin 1990:7), questionaram-se paradigmas,
desenvolveram-se novas metodologias e novas formas de pensar para construir um novo
conhecimento. Aliás sempre que a evolução técnica alarga o campo de visão do
conhecimento e novas ciências surgem, uma série de novas perguntas e de
reenquadramentos emergem como consequência natural. Na área das ciências da vida por
exemplo, os novos conhecimentos deram origem a novos significados éticos. Nunes
(2002:12) afirma mesmo que, "Uma ética fundada na dignidade humana pressupõe,
necessariamente, que novos conhecimentos na área das ciências biológicas possam
questionar axiomas considerados imutáveis, de modo a proporcionar - através de uma
análise introspetiva permanente - uma mudança gradual da visão antropológica do
homem”.
Relativamente à Ecologia, ainda antes de se lhe adicionar a palavra humana,
Soromenho-Marques (1994:16) já afirmava: “Nessa medida, a ecologia não se limita a
ser mais uma ciência particular a adicionar a outras ciências a outras ciências particulares.
No plano epistemológico, ela surge essencialmente como desafio conducente à
21
construção de um novo modelo de unidade das ciências, um novo corpus das ciências
capaz de refletir ao nível dos métodos de trabalho e investigação essa profunda unidade
objetiva do homem com todos os outros habitantes deste pequeno, mas magnífico mundo
planetário.”
Este exercício de confronto e conexão dos novos conhecimentos das ciências do Sistema
Terrestre com os velhos axiomas das organizações sociais, será mesmo uma condição
categórica para aferir a intencionalidade do agir humano, na sua relação com o sistema
envolvente. Desta forma, esta aferição prévia será igualmente pressuposto de legitimação
e validação das construções sociais humanas.
Daqui resulta que nos parece inevitável que a descodificação dos core drivers que
determinam o funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre e dos suportes da vida, constituam
informações que em muito deverão condicionar e moldar os paradigmas até hoje
construídos e que continuam a ser considerados imutáveis. Um Sistema Terrestre
interdependente e indivisível, se foi e continua a ser um enorme desafio para as ciências
naturais, será ainda maior no caso específico das ciências sociais. Pelas suas interligações
e escala é um desafio à forma de pensar e a tudo o que isso representa.
A questão coloca-se desde logo porque, como afirma Corraliza (1997:27), a "Crise
ambiental es una expresion infeliz, ya que más bien se trata de problemas de-la-
humanidad". Se nos lembrarmos também que foi a atividade humana que provocou os
chamados “problemas ambientais” e que essas alterações ambientais, por sua vez, irão
interferir na qualidade de vida dessas mesmas pessoas, concluiremos que esses problemas
são, na verdade, problemas da humanidade. Portanto, a origem dos problemas há que
buscá-la na deficiente adaptação das sociedades humanas às circunstâncias que impostas
pelo meio em que se encontram. Soromenho-Marques (1994:65) vai mais longe e faz a
síntese: “A Natureza já não é mais do que uma forma diferida do homem falar de si
próprio, um campo onde se projetam os seus sonhos, a sua desmesura, a sua paixão de
infinito”.
Posteriormente, foram as próprias Ciências do Sistema Terrestre, que vieram ao
encontro desta visão e ainda a tornaram mais integrada. Os problemas do ambiente são
problemas do homem, uma vez que a espécie humana é parte integral do Sistema
Terrestre: “The Earth System is defined as the interacting physical, chemical and
biological processes that cycle materials and energy throughout the system at the
planetary level. Importantly, humans and our activities are an integral part of the ES
(Oldfield and Steffen 2004). It is critical for the planetary boundaries framework to
22
recognize that the Earth System is a single complex system that exists in well-defined
states like all complex systems, the ES exhibits threshold/abrupt change behaviour in
aspects of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, which, if triggered, would create serious
risks for human well-being (Steffen 2016:24).”
O auto-isolamento conceptual da espécie humana relativamente à sua dependência
sistémica no seio do Sistema Terrestre, será com certeza uns dos maiores erros na história
das perceções humanas: “A ecologia tradicional, ao se preocupar tanto com os aspectos
físicos e bioquímicos da natureza, solidificando uma ecologia dos bichos e outra ecologia
das plantas, deixou de fora um grupo-chave para o entendimento das dinâmicas dos
ecossistemas: a espécie humana, objeto-sujeito da Ecologia Humana.” (Marques
2011.86). É neste contexto que a Ecologia Humana surge com a tarefa de colocar “um
fim na antítese entre natureza e a sociedade, significando que a natureza não pode ser
mais percebida fora da sociedade, ou a sociedade fora da natureza, os problemas
ambientais não são problemas do ambiente que nos rodeia, mas antes inteiramente
problemas sociais. São uma forma peculiar de problemas sociais, já que apesar de
representarem problemas para a sociedade, embora parecem ser problemas no ambiente
(Yearley, 2004:87).
O projeto de integração dos novos conhecimentos obtidos pelas ciências do Sistema
Terrestre implica subir ainda mais na escala das interligações, procedendo-se a uma
conexão entre as ciências sociais e as ciências naturais, tornando o desafio da Ecologia
Humana verdadeiramente civilizacional.
A tarefa é tudo menos simples e requer também por parte dos teóricos da Ecologia
Humana um novo pensamento, que não fique refém das metodologias e sistemas de
validação construídos sob o paradigma disjuntivo. Desde logo, o problema de definição
de um objeto científico autónomo deve ab inicio demarcar-se da preocupação da sua
validação e delimitação relativamente às ciências previamente estabelecidas: “A
dinâmica da Ecologia Humana em sua base científica tenta, dentro das condições
propostas, incorporar em si um pouco de cada área, sobretudo na tentativa de
compreender, analisar e valorar não apenas o homem ou o entorno. A sua essência, na
verdade, parte da construção de uma base filosófica do espaço-tempo na formação do
individuo e do coletivo. Por este motivo, não há como negar sua importância,
especialmente na evolução do conhecimento das ciências “não-tecnológicas”, tornando-
se um marco de visão interdisciplinar, revolucionando a visão académica, sobretudo a
sociologia e antropologia modernas que viram nas bases da ecologia teórica um novo
23
marco científico como fonte de pesquisa integracionista. Assim, pode-se dizer que a sua
expressão é fruto de uma relação concreta e de forte interdependência do Antropo,
decorrente de sua ação direta ou indireta com o meio físico-natural. “(Alvim 2014:23)
Uma ciência que desde a sua formulação inicial pretende colher saberes de todas as
outras ciências, que “coloca gente nos ecossistemas e situa-se nas inquietações sobre essa
relação entre a espécie humana e os ecossistemas.” (Marques 2011:86), que tem como
ambição fazer pontes e integrar o todo tornando-se a Unifying Science, Bruhn (1974:105),
tem obviamente um longo percurso a fazer na afirmação de um campo de estudo sobre o
todo, onde a ausência limitações vai continuar a ser um dos principais obstáculos ao seu
reconhecimento. Bruhn (1974:119) faz um estudo aprofundado em que tenta distinguir a
Ecologia Humana das ciências já estabelecidas e dissipar a relutância dos “self-interests”
dos saberes especializados em aceitarem uma ciência unificadora: “It would appear that
the major limitation in human ecology becoming a unifying science is the self-interest of
disciplines and the hence an incomplete conceptualization of man-environment relations.
There are viable but as yet largely untested schemes for studying and understanding man-
environment relations as a series of interdependent systems. For example, Michaelson
(1970) states that space has been used as a medium in ecological studies rather than a
variable with a potential effect of its own. Similarly, environment has been referred to by
human ecologists as the social environment without regard to how the physical
environment supports or elicits certain social behavior. When the social and physical
environments are viewed as interdependent systems, it is possible to examine how
changes in the state or variables in one system affect the state or variables in the other
(process). In addition, it is possible to study the coexistence of variables or factors that
bring about congruence (adaption) or incongruence (maladaptation) as the two systems
interact. He notes that, since any relations existing between environment and social
behavior are a function of cultural values and perceptions, it is important to investigate
the way in which physical, social and cultural variables articulate with each other to
elicit observed behavior.”
Na nossa análise, o estudo das inter-relações entre sistemas sociais e Sistema Terrestre,
que revelam adaptação ou não-adaptação na interação dos dois sistemas, será o fator
determinante para que seja possível o reconhecimento desse estatuto de overview science,
no caso de este estudo ser realizado com o objetivo da procura de soluções. Como afirma
novamente Bruhn (1974.120) “If Human ecology is concerned with the interrelationships
between man and this environment and with the process that affect changes in these
24
interrelationships, it is apparent that single disciplinary studies of these processes can
provide only small glimpses of the total ecological complex. While theoretical debates
among disciplines and reformulations of human ecology are sometimes fruitful, what is
perhaps most disturbing is that the concepts, principles, and methods of human ecology
used in geography, anthropology, sociology, and psychology are not so different to justify
the lack of interdisciplinary studies. While is not popular to advocate such studies in
universities or to propose that research be more oriented toward reaching solutions to
current human ecological problems, these appear to be worth serious consideration if
human ecology is indeed to ever become, in practice, a unifying science.”
Se a “necessidade de procurar respostas para compreender as complexas
interações entre processos sociais, económicos e ecológicos marcou em definitivo o
carácter interdisciplinar da ecologia humana” (Pires; Craveiro 2010:26), e que levou
igualmente à “necessidade de produzir conhecimento para compreender a relação do
homem com o seu ambiente, para responder à interrogação de qual o seu lugar na
natureza” (Pires; Craveiro 2011:15), estão criados os pressupostos programáticos iniciais
para que a Ecologia Humana possa ambicionar ser essa ponte instrumental de procura de
soluções integradas baseadas na investigação pluridisciplinar.
Se entendermos esta “relação entre homem e o ambiente” na sua devida escala – a
escala global - colocando a Humanidade no seio do Sistema Terrestre, e se o estudo destas
relações tiver como finalidade última a procura de soluções para transformar a não–
adaptação do modelo existente em propostas de adaptação, estarão criadas as condições
necessárias para que a Ecologia Humana possa aspirar a ser reconhecida como uma
ciência verdadeiramente unificadora per se.
1.4. Uma Ecologia Humana à escala do Sistema Terrestre
Se o motivo fundador da ecologia humana surge como um resultado emergente da
crise de adaptação do homem ao ambiente, era inevitável que esta ciência também
trilhasse o caminho que as próprias ciências ecológicas trilharam. Nas últimas três
décadas assistiu-se a uma ênfase nas perspetivas dedutivas, simplificadoras e
experimentais para estudar a estrutura e a dinâmica dos sistemas ecológicos. As análises
empíricas tendiam para efetuar manipulações, em pequena escala e no curto prazo, de
25
sistemas relativamente simples, a fim de investigar as interações entre espécies e entre
organismos e o respetivo ambiente abiótico. Nos anos mais recentes, porém, um número
crescente de cientistas começou a adotar programas de investigação muito mais
holísticos. Esta viragem foi produto, numa parte, da necessidade prática de estudar os
problemas ambientais causados pelos próprios seres humanos e, noutra parte, dos avanços
conceptuais, metodológicos e tecnológicos registados no estudo do Sistema Terrestre.
Esta evolução entre a fragmentação e a progressiva aceitação do desafio do complexo,
já anteriormente identificado por Morin (1999), foi igualmente inevitável neste percurso
da Ecologia Humana. Depois de uma fase inicial em que o objeto do estudo da Ecologia
Humana estava centrado na análise do uso e apropriação do espaço por parte das
comunidades humanas e nas relações decorrentes entre estas comunidades com esse
espaço local de suporte, desta fase inicial em que não existia uma clara distinção entre o
objeto desta nova ciência e o trabalho realizado pela Geografia Humana ou pela
Antropologia, surgiu a necessidade da transição de uma análise centrada no uso e
apropriação do espaço, para uma análise sistêmica em que o objeto do estudo passou a
ser constituído pelas relações que as comunidades humanas estabelecem com o ambiente,
e desta forma consolida-se como campo plurisdisciplinar por excelência.
Ora, desta evolução da análise das relações com o “território”, para a análise
sistémica dos “processos económicos e ecológicos”, sustentamos que o fator estrutural da
afirmação e autonomização da Ecologia Humana passa pela assunção de um processo de
“desterritorialização” do objeto de estudo. Tendo em conta que estes processos
ecológicos são na sua essência globais, a escala de estudo terá de se compatibilizar com
a escala dos processos. Como afirma Mcharg (1984:53) “O principal desafio que se
coloca à ecologia humana é da capacidade de síntese dos processos físicos, biológicos,
sociais, económicos e culturais para compreender as pessoas os lugares, observar as
relações sistémicas e comentá-las”. Iva Pires (2011:25) defende mesmo a perspetiva de
que a “Ecologia Humana seja pensada como esforço para uma inadiável compatibilidade
entre Socioesfera e Biosfera”. Se o desafio na Ecologia humana for realizado no contexto
da escala das relações entre a comunidade global (humanidade) e o meio envolvente (o
planeta e o sistema terrestre que suporta a vida), independentemente das leituras locais
parciais que possam ser realizadas, esta abordagem poderá constituir a grande novidade
que a Ecologia Humana pode trazer ao conhecimento, unificando-o e demarcando-se das
várias áreas de conhecimento que integra e incorpora. A Ecologia Humana seria assim
uma ciência que emerge da interação de todas as outras áreas de conhecimento, criando
26
uma nova, que como fenómeno emergente, seria mais do que a mera soma das partes. O
carácter pluridisciplinar da Ecologia Humana fica bem patente na diversidade de áras
temáticas das suas publicações indexadas na base de dados SCOPUS onde cerca de 50%
pertencem à área das ciências sociais e a outra metade está distribuída pelas ciências do
ambiente, medicina, ciências da terra, ou agricultura, entre as principais (Pires, et al,
2017).
A legitimidade de todo e qualquer conhecimento, como demonstram previamente
Camillieri e Falk (1992), depende do seu poder explicativo para retratar a realidade
conhecida. A aceitação/afirmação de uma nova ciência, mais do que o resultado de
teorizações ou tentativas de explicações com o intuito de distinguir e afirmar um novo
ramo de construção de conhecimento, irá depender dessa capacidade de acuradamente
descrever os factos e explicar da realidade e não de uma discussão centrada nos
procedimentos e metodologias aplicadas.
Se o objetivo último será a própria unificação do conhecimento e a Ecologia Humana
constitui-se como a ciência mais bem posicionada para desempenhar esta tarefa de
conectar as informações, talvez seja mesmo necessário assumir a sua não delimitação, até
porque essa delimitação seria sempre dependente das evoluções realizadas pelas outras
ciências com que interage. Parece-nos que aceitação desta sua condição instrumento de
conexões e de construção de sentidos, será mesmo um requisito estrutural para poder
ambicionar ser esse sistema de pontes e interconexões. Neste sentido, a nova escala de
trabalho das ciências naturais operada pelas ciências do Sistema Terrestre, parece-nos ser
uma oportunidade única para evolução das construções sociais e para a afirmação da
Ecologia Humana, como a ciência da visão integradora que avança na construção de
novas soluções em função destes novos conhecimentos.
“A global solution to the sustainability challenge is thus a prerequisite for living
sustainably at local and regional scales (Steffen et.at 2011:6)”. Parece-nos ilusória a
perspetiva de que a soma das atuações locais, poderão resultar numa mudança global.
Mesmo as abordagens numa escala mais reduzida dependem sempre da sua
contextualização numa abordagem global integradora, e essa tarefa estará inscrita no
código genético da Ecologia Humana.
27
1.5. Uma Ecologia Humana à escala da Humanidade
Depois de um longo percurso de investigação empírica, Elinor Ostrom publica em
1990 o seu livro seminal “Governing the Commons” onde explora de forma inovadora
sobre a possibilidade da gestão dos bens comuns não terminar fatalmente numa
“tragédia”. Tendo por base centenas de estudos realizados um pouco por todo o mundo,
Ostrom demonstrou que a gestão partilhada de terras, água, florestas ou pescas, quando
realizada sob a orientação de alguns princípios básicos que identificou, pode resultar num
sucesso para todos. A demonstração desta possibilidade é de enorme importância e
alcance uma vez que ela destrona a perspetiva de um modelo económico baseado
exclusivamente nos livres mecanismos de mercado e propriedade privada, como única
forma de evitar essa tragédia. Esta visão ainda hoje subscrita pela maioria dos
economistas, foi na sua essência desenhada e popularizada com um famoso artigo escrito
por um biólogo, Garret Hardin 1968, intitulado: "A Tragédia dos Bens Comuns". O
exemplo apresentado, que se tornou já um clássico, é o seguinte: numa situação de uso
partilhado de um pasto entre vários pastores, nenhum pastor individual irá ter um
incentivo racional para se auto-limitar no uso do pasto comum. Desta forma, se um dos
pastores trouxer uma cabeça de gado a mais, os outros pastores irão reagir da mesma
forma, aumentando igualmente o número individual de cabeças de gado a pastar no
terreno comum e o resultado será a sobre-exploração do pasto e a tragédia de todos. Esta
linha de raciocínio implica que só através da divisão e atribuição de propriedade privada
se poderá ultrapassar a inevitabilidade da tragédia dos comuns, pois apenas as pessoas
com propriedade privada seriam motivadas a proteger e a auto-limitar o uso das suas
próprias terras. O resultado final seria que a soma total destes comportamentos
individuais iria ser benéfica para todos. Acontece que Hardin e todos os seus sucessores
deturparam o conceito de bens comuns ao considera-lo um regime que apenas pode existir
num completo livre acesso, que se realiza num cenário de ausência de total regras, onde
não há limites para a apropriação do recurso, nem uma comunidade definida de usuários.
“But Hardin and others misrepresent the concept of the commons as an open-access
regime, operating in a free-for-all scenario where there are no boundaries to the grazing
land, no rules for managing it, and no community of users. However, a properly managed
commons has boundaries, rules, monitoring of usage, punishment of free-riders, and
28
social norms. A commons requires that, there be a community willing to act as a steward
of a resource (Gautam 2016: 270)”.
O free-for-all scenario, tem constituído a base estrutural que suporta a perspectiva da
inviabilidade da gestão de bens comuns, e a inexistência de uma alternativa consistente
ao modelo de privatização, divisão e mecanismos de mercado para evitar a tragédia dos
bens comuns. Para além deste erro de base, esta análise dominante, tem igualmente
ocultado o facto de existirem bens sobre os quais não é possível realizar nenhum tipo de
divisão, nem mesmo abstrata, nomeadamente à escala global, onde a tragédia dos bens
comuns globais é o sinónimo da Suprema Tragédia.
Nesta escala, para além da abordagem global ao bem, o qual se tornou possível definir
a partir do momento em que foi identificado o Safe Operating Space of Humankind, é
também necessário definir a comunidade de interesses na manutenção do bem comum,
neste caso o estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre. A construção de um modelo de gestão
do uso organizado do Sistema Terrestre pressupõe a existência de uma comunidade
humana (o conjunto planetário da Humanidade) internamente organizada, com o objetivo
de agir como protetora do Sistema Terrestre.
Como seres humanos, vivemos simultaneamente em dois tipos diferentes de
comunidades de interesses: uma ao nível das sociedades nacionais e outra ao nível da
comunidade global. Mas, ao contrário das comunidades nacionais organizadas em
territórios, a comunidade global da humanidade não é sujeito de Direito Internacional,
uma vez que não tem território onde basear uma “existência” organizada como uma
verdadeira comunidade de interesses comuns. O principio da territorialidade condiciona
de forma transversal todas as construções sociais humanas e nesta matéria o ponto de
partida a partir do qual a análise tradicional é feita é que uma comunidade humana
organizada pressupõe necessariamente a conjugação do elemento território com o
elemento povo, como suporte originário de onde deriva e delimita da autoridade do poder
político.
Acontece que à escala da comunidade humana global o "território" da humanidade é
o planeta, e esse facto ultrapassa o conceito de autoridade e organização exclusivamente
fundada num elemento territorial. A humanidade não possui desta forma um substrato de
lugar do qual derivam consequências jurídicas, e a partir do qual se possa basear a
organização de comunidade de interesses comuns de longo prazo, distintos e
complementares dos interesses de curto-prazo do Estados. O próprio Património da
Humanidade é em si uma ficção jurídica imprecisa, uma vez que a humanidade não pode
29
ser verdadeiramente titular de quaisquer direitos, nem sequer de representação, uma vez
que não possui qualquer personalidade jurídica (nacional ou internacional). Estes
problemas são visíveis, por exemplo, na gestão internacionalizada dos fundos Marinhos
- a chamada Área – prevista pela Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Direito do Mar
(CNUDM e também conhecida por Convenção de Montego Bay), onde no seu artigo
artigos 136º, se afirma “A Área e seus recursos são Património Comum da Humanidade.”
Este património comum é constituído pelos territórios dos fundos marinhos
remanescentes das jurisdições marítimas dos estados costeiros, isto é, todas as áreas que
ficam para além dos limites das zonas económicas exclusivas. A discussão doutrinal sobre
esta questão é em si reveladora da fragilidade do conceito jurídico de Humanidade e da
própria ficção jurídica que o próprio Património da Humanidade constitui. A humanidade
como conceito biológico não encaixa no modelo dogmático-formal da organização
territorial.
Embora para alguns autores, como Sadok Belaid (1982:433-39), a qualificação da
Área como Património Comum da Humanidade traduza o reconhecimento da
comunidade humana ou mesmo da humanidade como titular de um direito de propriedade
coletivo, a grande maioria contraria veementemente esta opinião. Este posicionamento
fundamenta-se com argumentos que recaem no facto da comunidade humana ou a
humanidade não serem sujeitos de direito, isto é, não só a humanidade não possui
personalidade jurídica, sendo desta forma insuscetível de ser titular de quaisquer direitos,
como no facto da própria ideia de um direito de propriedade coletiva não parecer
adequada à caracterização do Património Comum da Humanidade. Em bom rigor, a
circunstância dos artigos 136º
e 137º aparentemente atribuírem à humanidade a
titularidade de certos direitos, não parece suficiente para concluir a personalidade
internacional da humanidade e a inerente titularidade das referidas posições jurídicas. Se
para alguns a inexistência de normas na CNUDM sobre a questão da personalidade da
Humanidade só pode significar a sua não personificação internacional e a inerente
insusceptibilidade de possuir a titularidade de quaisquer direitos face à Área, para outros,
o que releva é a prática da própria Autoridade que age em nome e no interesse da
Humanidade, não sendo necessário para tal uma menção formal expressa de que a
personalidade lhe tenha sido atribuída.
A consideração da Área como Património Comum da Humanidade só pode ser
explicada através de uma verdadeira ficção jurídica. Na realidade, não é a Humanidade
que surge como sujeito de direito internacional, mas sim a Autoridade Internacional dos
30
Fundos Marinhos. Consequentemente, só esta pode ser titular de direitos e estar adstrita
a obrigações, ainda que ficcionadamente se diga agir como representante da Humanidade.
Uma certeza, porém, existe: o território submerso que está sob o regime jurídico de
Património Comum da Humanidade funciona como substrato territorial de um sujeito de
direito internacional (A Autoridade) pelo que esta se assume como titular de um
verdadeiro domínio público sobre o referido espaço. Todavia, a titularidade do citado
espaço confere à Autoridade, simultaneamente, o ónus de gerir e explorar os recursos da
Área em benefício de toda a Humanidade, tendo sempre em vista a sua conservação para
as gerações futuras (Fialho et.al 2009:10).
Por outro lado, a Humanidade é recorrentemente mencionada nos textos dos Tratados
Internacionais, sem, no entanto, ser clara a forma da sua representação, existência ou
aptidão para se constituir como titular de direitos. Ora se existe algum comentário que
possa ser feito quanto à questão da Humanidade é que a própria problemática em si é
reveladora do paradigma da territorialidade como ponto focal a partir do qual se analisam
todos os factos do mundo real.
Isto é, embora o conjunto humanidade exista de facto, não pode ser titular de direitos,
mas, no entanto, pode nomear representantes para os exercer através dos Estados... uma
vez que na “(...) impossibilidade de ser atribuída a representação da Humanidade
diretamente aos Estados, com a consequente criação de uma entidade internacional, por
meio da qual os Estados organizam e controlam as atividades da Área. (Fialho et.al
2009:11)”.
Perceber o contexto legal existente é então fundamental para perceber a estrutura da
atual relação Humanidade-Planeta/Sistema Terrestre e as causas estruturais que estão na
base do modelo “não-adaptado” vigente, bem como na inexistência da uma comunidade
global organizada com o willing to act, conforme mencionado por Gautam, para ser
possível a construção de uma ação coletiva. Este contexto será ainda um fator
determinante para o problema do enquadramento jurídico das gerações futuras e os seus
potenciais interesses.
31
1.6. Uma Ecologia Humana trans-temporal
Outra dimensão a ter em conta na análise da relação entre a comunidade humana e o
/Sistema Terrestre, será perceber de que forma a organização desta comunidade está
adaptada, ou não, para acautelar os interesses das gerações futuras. A encruzilhada de
desafios que se colocam à Ecologia Humana na sua afirmação como ciência integradora,
estendem-se muito além do desafio científico de construção de uma plataforma de
conhecimento que integra várias disciplinas. Se anteriormente analisamos o desafio da
escala do objeto, no sentido de que é inevitável abordar o Sistema Terrestre na sua
globalidade, e um outro desafio relativo ao sujeito, no sentido de abordar a Humanidade
como o conjunto de todos os seres humanos, relativamente a este último teremos ainda
que nos debruçar sobre o desafio temporal, no sentido de perceber em que medida o
modelo de adaptação pode ou não assegurar um suporte de vida para a continuidade das
gerações que ainda não nasceram.
Uma vez que os impactos realizados no estado do Sistema Terrestre são cumulativos e
a relação entre causas e efeitos implicam necessariamente uma projeção de vínculos para
o futuro, abre-se uma série de possibilidades distintas de abordagens: a) sob uma ótica
crítica estritamente jurídica, as relações com as futuras gerações podem ser consideradas
impossíveis, na medida em que estas ainda não existem, b) sob uma análise económica,
podem ainda ser desinteressantes, no sentido de nada poderem retribuir aos interesses
materiais das atuais gerações, c) podem ainda ser considerados apenas deveres meramente
morais. Finalmente, também é possível identificar uma obrigação de solidariedade com
as gerações futuras e que ultrapassa a noção egoísta e utilitarista das gerações atuais.
Para Edith Weiss (1992:5) “There are two relationships that must shape any theory
of intergenerational equity in the context of our natural environment: our relationship to
other generations of our own species and our relationship to the natural system of which
we are a part. The human species is integrally linked with other parts of the natural
system; we affect and are affected by what happens in the system. We alone among all
living creatures have the capacity to shape significantly our relationship to the
environment.” Esta visão pode ainda ser sustentada no regime legal de Património
Comum da Humanidade, como explica Alexandra Aragão (1997:31): “Da ideia de
Património Comum da Humanidade, podem-se retirar duas consequências: primeiro, que
sobre estes recursos existe uma espécie de comunhão, uma sobreposição e um paralelismo
32
de direitos absolutos, cuja finalidade é a satisfação tanto de interesses coletivos como
individuais; segundo, que as gerações atuais os detêm apenas a título fiduciário. A
responsabilidade fiduciária das gerações presentes perante as futuras significa que os
recursos devem ser deixados às futuras gerações, tal como foram encontrados,
preservando tanto a variedade como a abundância como ainda a qualidade dos bens”.
Este dever é expresso na teoria da “equidade intergeracional”: “The second
fundamental relationship is that between different generations of the human species. All
generations are inherently linked to other generations, past and future, in using the
common patrimony of Earth. The theory of intergenerational equity stipulates that all
generations have an equal place in relation to the natural system. There is no basis for
preferring the present generation over future generations in their use of the planet (Weiss
1992:6)”.
Apesar deste princípio da equidade intergeracional se encontrar já previsto em algumas
Constituições, como é o caso da Constituição Brasileira3 onde as gerações futuras não são
tidas apenas como interessadas, mas antes consideradas verdadeiros titulares de direitos
em relação ao desenvolvimento e ao património ambiental, esta “responsabilidade de
longa-duração” levanta várias dificuldades teorético-dogmáticas e jurídico-dogmáticas
no recorte de um sujeito de direitos e de relações jurídicas, nebulosamente identificado
como “gerações futuras”, conforme alerta Gomes Canotilho (2003). Estas dificuldades
levam alguns autores a acentuar que o que está em causa não será a titularidade de direitos
futuros, mas sim a inclusão dos interesses das gerações futuras nos princípios materiais
de atuação político-constitucionalmente relevantes. Outra corrente da doutrina refere-se
a este direito na esteira de reconhecer um direito ao futuro, ou seja, a uma obrigação
jurídica de proteção do futuro (Ayala 2004, Freitas, 2012).
Numa lógica estritamente formal será difícil recortar uma relação jurídica com o
futuro, no sentido de ser impossível definir com precisão o sujeito dessa relação futura.
É com base nesta lógica de raciocínio que Wilfred Beckerman (2006) nega a existência
de direitos ou interesses das futuras gerações, baseando-se em três silogismos: (1) às
futuras gerações – de pessoas ainda não nascidas – não se pode reconhecer quaisquer
direitos; (2) qualquer teoria de justiça coerente implica uma atribuição de direitos às
3 Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil – Artigo 225º “Todos têm direito ao meio ambiente ecologicamente equilibrado, bem de uso comum do povo e essencial à sadia qualidade de vida, impondo-se ao Poder Público e à coletividade o dever de defendê-lo e preservá-lo para as presentes e futuras gerações.” - Centro de Documentação e informação, Edições Câmara, Brasília, 2012.
33
pessoas. Portanto, (3) os interesses das futuras gerações não podem ser protegidos ou
promovidos sob a estrutura de qualquer teoria de justiça.
Desta questão, em virtude da limitação imposta pelo princípio da representação
democrática (quem decide é a atual geração) e de que a responsabilidade dos governantes
que tomam decisões hoje é limitada ao tempo das suas vidas, Carla Amado Gomes (2007) defende que a solidariedade entre gerações se trata de um imperativo meramente moral,
que impende sobre a geração que tem na sua disponibilidade a história, e por isso assume
responsabilidades perante os vindouros — mas esta obrigação não têm um carácter
jurídico.�Em conclusão Amado Gomes define (2007:108) “a teoria da solidariedade
intergeracional, apesar de “emotivamente sugestiva” e “nobre nas suas intenções”, não
consegue ultrapassar o limiar da obrigação moral, em virtude dos obstáculos práticos
[ausência de representatividade política (dos interesses) das gerações futuras], jurídicos
(inexistência de mecanismos de imputação de responsabilidade das gerações futuras
relativamente às anteriores), científicos (impossibilidade de atestar, com absoluta certeza,
a inocuidade e irreversibilidade de certas intervenções ambientais), sociais (dificuldades:
- de travar a introdução de inovações tecnológicas que constituem uma melhoria aos olhos
da geração presente; - de explicar a necessidade de alteração ou mesmo eliminação de
hábitos presentes em nome de hipotéticos interesses das gerações futuras) que reveste.”
São estas dificuldades que levaram John Rawls (2008) a afirmar que nós podemos
fazer algo para a posteridade, mas ela nada pode fazer por nós. Esta situação é inalterável,
e por isso a questão da justiça não vem à tona. E é por esta razão que o problema da justiça
intergeracional coloca à teoria da ética severos senão impossíveis testes.
Antonio Benjamin (2011) alerta ainda para o facto de as futuras gerações não poderem
estar fisicamente presentes nos debates legislativos do presente, bem como os milhões de
espécies existentes no planeta, muitas das quais nem sequer são conhecidas pela Ciência.
No entanto, mesmo reconhecendo a verdade destes factos, também não podemos negar a
certeza de que as gerações futuras possuirão existência em determinado momento
histórico, a não ser que a vida neste planeta fosse extinta de uma única vez, situação na
qual não restaria oportunidade para alguém beneficiar da herança cultural ou dos recursos
planetários. Como essa possibilidade não se coloca para já, há que ultrapassar o paradoxo,
como afirma (Weiss 1992:14): “This paradox assumes the traditional conceptual
framework of rights as rights of identifiable individuals. But planetary intergenerational
rights are not in the first instance rights possessed by individuals. They are, instead,
34
generational rights, which must be conceived of in the temporal context of generations.
Generations hold these rights as groups in relation to other generations - past, present,
and future. This is consistent with other approaches to rights, including the Islamic
approach, which treats human rights not only as individual rights, but as "rights of the
community of believers as a whole.” They can be evaluated by objective criteria and
indices applied to the planet from one generation to the next. To evaluate whether the
interests represented in planetary rights are being adequately protected does not depend
upon knowing the number of kinds of individuals that may ultimately exist in any given
future generation.”
Este raciocínio parte de um pressuposto fundamental, o de se reconhecer senão a
existência das gerações futuras, a certeza de que possuirão existência em determinado
momento histórico. Seja esse facto visto como mera expectativa, seja como futuro
naturalmente previsível. Helena Melo (2002:156), entende que vários sentidos têm sido
atribuídos à expressão gerações futuras, quer abrangendo as crianças já nascidas, quer
abrangendo apenas os indivíduos, quer abrangendo apenas os indivíduos que nascerão
num futuro mais ou menos remoto. Se partirmos do conceito de geração como “o conjunto
dos indivíduos nascidos mais ou mesmo tempo (Malhotra 1998:41), cobrindo cada
geração um período de aproximadamente vinte e cinco anos, tal significa que nesta
abordagem não existe uma clara demarcação entre uma geração e a geração
imediatamente a seguir ou anterior. Há, antes pelo contrário, um continuum de gerações,
que se sucedem e sobrepõem no tempo. Ainda segundo Malhotra (1998:41) “De acordo
com esta aceção, os indivíduos futuros são indivíduos que ainda não existem, sendo
impossível determinar com exatidão quem e quantos serão. Juridicamente são
concepturos, i.e., nascituros ainda não concebidos cujo o nascimento futuro se prevê
como possível”.
As gerações futuras serão assim constituídas pelos indivíduos que existirão num
determinado período da história da Humanidade, pelos indivíduos humanos futuros.
Giuliano Pontara (1996:112), entende que “indivíduos futuros” serão “todos aqueles
indivíduos que relativamente aos indivíduos existentes num determinado período de
tempo t, existirão de facto depois de t.” Estes indivíduos farão parte da “coletividade ad
infinitum de todos os seres humanos que sucederão à presente geração que se encontra
viva” num determinado momento da história. Cada geração será deste modo “um elo
numa cadeia sem fim de gerações que coletivamente forma uma comunidade, a Família
da Humanidade” (Agius 1998:7).
35
Aparece deste modo, o conceito de Humanidade como uma comunidade
intergeracional, que inclui as gerações passadas, presentes e futuras, como uma
“comunidade de seres que olham para trás e para a frente, que interpreta o passado à luz
do presente, que vê o futuro como nascido do passado” (Agiu, Kim 1998:15). Se o Direito
ainda busca um caminho que torne possível enquadrar juridicamente uma comunidade
que existe no interior de todas as fronteiras e é global, as ciências naturais já encontraram
o fundamento da unidade biológica da existência real e factual desta comunidade global:
“toda a pessoa, quer viva hoje ou no futuro, se encontra relacionada genética e
culturalmente com o resto da comunidade da raça humana” (Santos 2001:68). A
Humanidade pode assim significar a “totalidade do género humano, o conjunto de todos
os seres humanos que habitam o planeta” (Santos 2001:68) ao longo das sucessivas
gerações. É também chegada a hora de fazer coincidir estas realidades naturais com a
realidade construída, que reconhecendo igualmente a factualidade da existência de povos
politicamente organizados num determinado território juridicamente delimitado, não
impliquem necessariamente a ocultação e negação da existência de uma comunidade
humana global geneticamente e temporalmente ligada.
Mas apesar do contributo positivo na definição de Humanidade suscitada pela
evolução das ciências da vida e pela descodificação do genoma humano, os problemas do
recorte de um sujeito de direitos e de relações jurídicas futuras, mantêm-se. E é
exatamente ao fugir de conceitos metafísicos, que John Ralws (2008), conforme já visto,
retoma a discussão do futuro num verdadeiro marco teórico sobre a responsabilidade
intergeracional. Trata-se de uma teoria que busca o descolamento de qualquer vínculo
jurídico com o futuro de uma visão metafísica sobre o mesmo, apoiando-se na noção de
interesses enquanto fatores decisivos para a ação, e a racionalidade como critério de
justiça. Parte-se assim de um pressuposto temporal elementar, qual seja, o de centrar o
foco no presente e no raio de ação das gerações vivas, ainda que para gerar efeitos para
as futuras gerações. Na verdade, como refere Fensterseifer, (2014) as gerações futuras
nada podem fazer hoje para preservar o ambiente de que vão usufruir, razão pela qual
toda a responsabilidade (e deveres correspondentes) de preservação da vida e da
qualidade ambiental para o futuro recai sobre as gerações presentes.
É neste contexto, com base no princípio da solidariedade intergeracional, em que as
responsabilidades das gerações humanas presentes respondem perante um critério de
justiça intergeracional, ou seja, entre gerações humanas distintas, que iremos procurar
36
encontrar um espaço em que a Ecologia Humana possa servir como uma plataforma de
soluções.
1.7. Ecologia Humana – Uma ciência do Antropoceno como construtora de sínteses e soluções
O último período interglacial relativo aos últimos 11.700 anos, corresponde a um
período de estabilidade climática sem qualquer precedente na história do Sistema
Terrestre. É o chamado período geológico do Holoceno. As alterações que as atividades
humanas estão a provocar na estrutura biogeofísica do Sistema Terreste correspondente
a este período, são de tal forma impactantes, que estamos a provocar uma alteração nestas
condições favoráveis e a dar origem a uma nova era geológica - o chamado
"Antropoceno"- após o Holoceno. Entre os fatores decisivos estão o grande aumento na
população humana, produção de metano pelo gado, pesca, o uso de água, alterações no
uso da terra, a queima de combustíveis fósseis e as emissões de CO2, os plásticos e os
fertilizantes à base de azoto, estão entre as atividades humanas que contribuem para, entre
outras coisas, as alterações climáticas, a acidificação dos oceanos e a extinção de grande
número de espécies, a chamada sexta extinção. A totalidade dessas atividades humanas
contribuíram para o advento do Antropoceno e são já rastreáveis nos estratos geológicos
da Terra.
Os motivos que estão na origem da rutura das condições favoráveis e da consequente
mudança para uma nova época geológica estão profundamente enraizados num direito
internacional completamente inadaptado para lidar com a dimensão global dos bens
comuns. As causas estruturais desta disfuncionalidade jurídica são, em nosso entender,
essencialmente duas: a) manutenção de uma abordagem estritamente territorialista, em
que os bens comuns globais são apenas os territórios sobrantes das divisões políticas entre
os Estados, b) manutenção de um direito económico internacional que considera como
“externalidades” (positivas ou negativas) as alterações provocadas nos ciclos
biogeofísicos globais. De referir, que embora numa primeira análise estas causas
aparentem uma ausência de relação, a consideração destes fatores vitais como
“externalidades” encontra a sua razão de ser na abordagem territorialista: porque estes
elementos não-territoriais só podem ser considerados “externos” ao território dos Estados,
37
estes ciclos biogeofísicos são juridicamente irrelevantes e, como resultado desta
irrelevância são também economicamente invisíveis.
Os resultados desta inadaptação são uma inexorável caminhada para a tragédia dos
ciclos biogeofísicos globais, que por sua vez irão dar origem à tragédia dos territórios, da
organização social e das fundações da vida - a Tragédia Suprema. A consideração de que
os fatores que afetam os ciclos biogeofísicos globais são “externalidades” relativamente
aos Estados, e de que tudo o que é global ou trans-temporal, ou é invisível ou
tecnicamente impossível, são os bloqueios dogmáticos que impedem a mudança
estrutural como única possibilidade de encontrar um conceito que nos permita uma
solução.
Para ultrapassar este bloqueio, para gerir estes desafios de evolução e mudança,
precisamos de maneiras efetivas de tomar decisões coletivas e de longo prazo que tenham
em consideração a sobreposição destes ciclos biogeofísicos que existem no interior e
exterior de todos os Estados, e os interesses de todos os afetados incluindo os interesses
das futuras gerações. O sistema implementado para gerir estas questões globais -
incluindo a ONU e as organizações conectadas com as Nações Unidas - está, na sua forma
atual, refém do sistema estado-cêntrico, sem uma definição e delimitação clara dessa
tarefa comum de assegurar a manutenção do Sistema Terrestre como um todo, de forma
autónoma e complementar aos interesses individuais dos Estados. Hoje, estes desafios da
interdependência são respondidos com o recurso a ferramentas de ontem - negociações
multilaterais que são suscetíveis a interesses nacionais de curto prazo. Como
consequência, as ações necessárias não são tomadas ou são tomadas muito tarde,
enquanto os problemas e os riscos continuam a crescer.
Como Afirma Anthony Giddens (1999:18), “Estamos a ser empurrados para uma
ordem global, que devido à sua escala e total interdependência, nem sequer a
conseguimos compreender ou explicar, mas cujos os efeitos se fazem já sentir. Mas
ninguém que pretenda progredir neste final de século pode ignorar esta realidade (...). O
Século XXI será o campo de batalha em que o fundamentalismo se vai defrontar com a
tolerância cosmopolita.” Esta nova ordem global, é ainda uma desordem. Ainda não é
conduzida por uma vontade humana coletiva, mas antes emerge de forma anárquica, ao
acaso, movida por uma mistura de influências. Nesta desordem florescem os
nacionalismos, os populismos locais como resposta às tendências globalizantes
desreguladas, e que tornam os velhos Estados-Nação mais fracos, na ilusão de que se
afirmarem a sua independência fechando as fronteiras, se tornam mais fortes. A
38
possibilidade de sairmos deste ciclo fatal compete em primeiro lugar ao direito, na sua
dimensão de estrutura organizadora e harmonizadora destas tensões e não no seu papel
sancionatório. Ainda na esteira de Giddens (1999:24), “Assim, há que admitir que a
globalização não é um processo simples, é uma rede complexa de processos. E estes
operam de forma contraditória ou em oposição aberta. Para a maioria das pessoas, a
globalização é apenas uma “troca” de poder ou de influência, das comunidades locais ou
das nações para a arena global. (...) Precisamos de reconstruir as instituições que temos,
ou substituir por outras. Porque a globalização não é um incidente passageiro nas nossas
vidas. É uma mudança das próprias circunstâncias em que vivemos. Para superar esses
desafios, teremos que repensar a natureza fragmentada do sistema jurídico internacional”.
Neste sentido a organização destes interesses comuns necessita de uma autonomização
que permita a sua gestão permanente por uma entidade independente que aja em nome e
no interesse de todos, e onde todos estejam devidamente representados.
No contexto das relações dominantes entre Estados, ainda é visível que em alguns
dos mecanismos comerciais que fazem parte dos acordos ambientais multilaterais
(MEAs), demonstram igualmente que o quadro subjacente das relações está ainda
intimamente ligado ao legado colonial do direito internacional. Com o advento da
interdependência e do Antropoceno, sabemos hoje que a exportação de problemas
ambientais do "núcleo" para a "periferia", dos estados desenvolvidos para os países em
desenvolvimento, não é apenas moralmente censurável, como conduz ao mesmo
resultado. Por outras palavras, perceber o Antropoceno é interiorizar a globalidade, a
interdependência e ser capaz de pensar sem fronteiras, percebendo que a origem ou
localização da atividade humana danosa serve apenas como informação para a construção
de um sistema de organização da justiça interna, mas que é irrelevante na escala global.
Esta impossibilidade de “exportar” atividades que provocam danos ou de armazenar
benefícios, suscitadas pelas interconexões ecológicas e que resultam em
interdependências políticas e económicas, são os sinais exteriores de algo que nunca
existiu antes: uma sociedade cosmopolita global. Somos a primeira geração a viver numa
sociedade, cujos contornos ainda mal conseguimos vislumbrar, e para qual não existe
ainda um sistema de organização nem à escala da comunidade humana, nem à escala do
funcionamento global do Sistema Terrestre.
Como se afirma no relatório Global Commons in the Anthropocene, “The
Anthropocene is the defining concept of our age. The most significant implication for life
in the Anthropocene is the urgent need to shift to a new worldview that encompasses the
39
idea of planetary stewardship for the Global Commons, thereby delivering global
benefits. Effective planetary stewardship can be defined as the sum total of societal and
individual activities that generate long-lasting prosperity for all and enhance the
resilience of the Earth system. To achieve this aim will require a shift in worldviews at
all scales, from local community to nation and from regional to global” (Nakicenovic,N.
et.al 2016,32-33).
A nova era do Antropoceno significa uma nova visão do mundo, onde o pensamento
em silos desaparece, onde o pensamento global enquadra e orienta as ações locais, onde
as fronteiras são encaradas apenas como um nível necessário da organização social que
não é confundível com a realidade global ambiental, onde os fenómenos ambientais e os
fenómenos sociais se percecionam como interdependentes, encaixa com missão da
Ecologia Humana como ciência que, pela sua especificidade, pode dar um contributo
relevante para essa nova forma de olhar o mundo (Pires 2014). O seu grande objetivo
pretende ser uma contribuição para a construção de uma visão antri-fragmentária do
mundo unindo e dando sentido à contribuição das ciências especializadas (Steiner e
Narkus, 2003), procurando conexões entre os saberes que de outra forma ficariam
segregados (Borden, 2014).
Só partindo de uma visão global, onde o contacto e interação entre as ciências naturais
e as ciências sociais é fundamental, é possível construir uma mediação entre as
capacidades da técnica, o Sistema Terrestre, as nossas intenções e as organizações que as
sustentam.
40
Capítulo 2
A Natureza Intangível
“Nunca conseguiremos ser donos da nossa própria história, mas é obrigatório que encontremos os meios, e temos capacidade para isso, de colocar este nosso mundo
“desvairado” no rumo certo. (Giddens 1999 p.18)
2.1. O Património Intangível como o fio de Ariadne do Antropoceno
Como explicado anteriormente, a utilização da “territorial obsession” (Taylor
2016:112) como modelo exclusivo da organização social, é uma narrativa
manifestamente incompleta e limitadora não só no contexto da complexidade ambiental
existente, bem como na diversidade das sociedades de hoje. Este modelo territorialista
que oculta tudo que interliga, interfere e é global, tem tido como resultado a abertura de
um espaço de livre arbítrio, que marginaliza a própria autoridade do Estado. Isto acontece
nos mais variados níveis, exigindo uma evolução para uma multi-level governance, que
vai muito além da governança espacial do território. Neste contexto, a par com a questão
ambiental, a área que mais se tem destacado pela sua influência e pelo seu poder efetivo,
é o da globalização financeira. Woodward (2005:46), no seu artigo “territorial trap”
afirma: “Therefore spaces of places models alone are not sound basis for the development
41
of a generalizable framework of multi-level governance. Space of places models need to
be complemented by an analysis of non-state spheres of authority understood as “spaces
of flows” (Choen1998). The spaces of flows perspective recognizes that some spheres of
authority are deterritorialized meaning that they derive their power and authority from,
and exercise their power and authority over, functional or social as opposed territorial
spaces. The strength of this approach is its appreciation of sites and structures of
governance that cut across, exist within and cascade through territorial levels. The
problem is that the spaces of flows blueprint ignores or marginalizes structures of power
and authority grounded in territorial space, so, like space of places model, it represents
an incomplete narrative on contemporary financial governance. Cohen’s (1998) solution
to this dilemma is to introduce a fresh concept, “the authoritative domains”, that
recognizes, reconciles and synthesizes territorial and non-territorial elements of power
and authority’s territorial and non-territorial elements of power and authority into a single
overarching governance condominium.”
A nível ambiental a ocultação social das conexões globais e a inexistência de uma
governação efetiva dos elementos não-territoriais constituídos pelos ciclos biogeofísicos
globais (para os quais as atuais tentativas de governação multilateral, têm sido
manifestamente insuficientes) exigem igualmente uma governação não-territorial.
Neste sentido, a governação do Antropoceno requer esta abordagem multi-escala,
onde a governação dos interesses globais e comuns a toda a humanidade, presente e
futura, coexiste com a governação territorial. E não deixa ser interessante o facto de o
modelo proposto para uma governação financeira da globalização ser o condomínio,
como o único modelo jurídico capaz de comportar uma governação multi-level. Estas
soluções de coexistência apontam para o facto de que o que está em causa não é o “fim-
do-Estado” territorial, mas sim, a sua inevitável evolução. O principal obstáculo a
ultrapassar é precisamente o atual modelo da “obsessão territorial” como solução única
de governação. Se partirmos da inevitável factualidade do funcionamento global do
Sistema Terrestre para a procura de soluções, percebemos que o reenquadramento destas
barreiras conceptuais jurídicas é possível, e essa é uma condição prévia estrutural para a
construção de um modelo de organização social adaptado ao funcionamento planeta –
isto é, é um passo primordial para realização do próprio objetivo da Ecologia Humana.
A Ecologia Humana, ao colocar a comunidade humana no seio do ecossistema
global – o Sistema Terrestre – está a confrontar-se com uma série de paradigmas sociais
consolidados ao longo da história da humanidade. A sua visão holística é em primeiro
42
lugar altamente desafiante para o sistema jurídico, como esquema regulador das relações
entre indivíduos, Estados e comunidades. Neste sentido, a ecologia humana na sua função
de síntese dialogante, deverá ter como parceiros estratégicos as ciências do Sistema
Terrestre e as ciências jurídicas, os quais vão ser essenciais para realizar o trabalho de
enquadramento teórico prévio, na construção de uma sociedade adaptada ao
funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre.
2.2. Organizar a fruição coletiva
Embora recente na escala temporal das ciências jurídicas, o direito do ambiente,
pela sua capacidade de intervir em todas as áreas do agir humano, desde cedo, quer no
processo da sua conceptualização, quer no processo da sua aplicação, revelou-se
subversivo e complexo. O carácter difuso e indeterminado do seu objeto, a
impossibilidade de o conter no interior de uma fronteira administrativa ou política,
levantou problemas de harmonização com os restantes ordenamentos jurídicos internos
ou internacionais, sobrepondo as dimensões locais e globais com as estruturas jurídico-
dogmáticas estabelecidas.
Este desajustamento entre o novo direito e o direito pré-existente deve-se em grande
medida a esta sobreposição de diferentes tipos de relações humanas em diferentes escalas,
em que algumas das quais podem ser em parte enquadradas no nível local do Estado, mas
cujos os efeitos são em grande parte dispersos numa escala global. Isto é, enquanto a
dimensão do micro-bem ambiental gera relações típicas do Direito Público ou do Direito
Privado nos termos tradicionais para o Direito, a dimensão do macro-bem ambiental – o
Sistema Terrestre – deveria gerar um novo tipo de relação jurídica, de natureza global, e
para a qual não existe um suporte legal nem locus que lhe possa conferir um
enquadramento jurídico.
Esta incompatibilidade sistémica entre funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre e modelo
de divisão territorial existente, não se ficou apenas ao nível do espaço geográfico.
Aprofundando a disfuncionalidade entre modelos, a crise ambiental questiona ainda não
só o modelo económico quanto ao objetivo do crescimento ilimitado, como ainda levanta
a questão da absoluta da necessidade de desenvolver um modelo de prossecução de
interesses comuns. Ora estas características são altamente desafiadoras para o modelo
económico existente, onde a solução para a harmonização entre interesses coletivos e
43
interesses privados nos é apresentada através da consideração de que a soma da
prossecução dos interesses individuais representará a melhor forma da prossecução dos
interesses comuns. É neste contexto que o “bem ambiente” surge, e que sendo um bem
global indivisível e inapropriável (embora o seu estado possa ser alterado pelo uso), não
se presta a uma fruição de troca e alienação, mas sim a uma função de fruição coletiva
(Colaço Antunes 1998). Isto é, a tarefa de organizar a fruição do ambiente, neste caso o
macro-bem Sistema Terrestre, não pode ser realizada numa lógica de divisão, propriedade
privada e mecanismos de mercado desregulados.
Ora, conscientes desta impossibilidade na escala do Sistema Terrestre, um dos
desafios mais importantes do Antropoceno será o de anular a antítese existente entre os
dois nos modelos de governança de bens comuns: a solução clássica de Garret Hardin –
divisão, direitos de propriedade e mecanismos de mercado para evitar a "Tragédia dos
Comuns" - e a abordagem de Elinor Ostrom que estabelece as condições estruturais
necessárias para que gestão coletiva seja possível, resultando em vantagens mútuas para
todas os participantes no médio prazo.
À escala de nosso verdadeiro Global Common - o Sistema da Terrestre – a utilização
isolada de uma destas soluções, não é capaz de retratar com precisão todos os factos:
a) As fronteiras políticas das soberanias constituem o suporte estrutural da
organização social. Neste nível, a solução de divisão de Hardin, parece
permanecer válida sem nenhuma alternativa visível.
Mas por outro lado…
b) O estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre é um bem intangível global, no qual não
é possível realizar nenhuma operação de divisão, nem mesmo abstrata. Neste
contexto, os princípios identificados por Ostrom para a gestão bem-sucedida dos
bens comuns, podem vir a ser um contributo de excecional relevância para a
construção de um modelo capaz de assegurar a preservação do estado favorável
como uma herança que deve ser mantida para usufruto das próximas gerações.
Então o desafio que se coloca ao Direito é em grande medida o da construção das
condições estruturais necessárias para tornar possível esta fruição coletiva de um bem que
não é suscetível de apropriação ou divisão, e ao mesmo tempo assegurar a manutenção
44
da divisão política territorial. Só depois desta organização estar realizada, à escala do bem
em causa - o Sistema Terrestre – será possível que o direito do ambiente se torna efetivo
– isto é que abandone o seu deficit sistémico de aplicação. Esta desvinculação da vertente
proprietarista individual, e a assunção da inevitabilidade da abordagem do ambiente como
“bem comum”, insuscetível de divisão ou de qualquer forma de apropriação individual,
irá constituir o grande desafio da construção de um modelo social para o Antropoceno.
Para Amado Gomes (2005:24), “O ambiente é um bem de uma comunidade e a sua
dimensão coletiva não pode ser perdida de vista. O direito subjetivo indicia uma posição
egoística, longe da perspetiva solidarista que deve presidir à gestão dos bens ambientais.
Por isso consideramos que a melhor doutrina é aquela que vê no direito ao ambiente um
direito-dever de utilização racional dos bens ambientais.(...) O direito ao ambiente,
constitui desta feita, um bom exemplo de um novo tipo de direitos fundamentais,
verdadeiros “direitos de solidariedade”, “direitos poligonais” ou “direitos circulares” cujo
conteúdo é definido pelo interesse comum,(...)”. Ora esta organização implica uma
análise das relações cruzadas e não raras vezes opostas, que se exercem sobre este bem
de fruição coletiva à escala da comunidade humana global. A identificação das dinâmicas
humanas de usos com efeitos negativos e a identificação das dinâmicas naturais que
realizam benefícios na manutenção do sistema comum, são uma tarefa base para perceber
os conteúdos destas relações e para poder organizar esta fruição.
Uma vez que é de todo impossível fazer coincidir a escala do bem “ambiente” com os
limites dos territórios soberanos dos estados, e que o problema da definição do objeto do
direito do ambiente pode ser ultrapassado através da definição do Safe Operating Space,
existem neste momento as condições necessárias para se dar o salto conceptual na
definição desse “ambiente salubre” como um novo bem jurídico, que só pode ser
assegurado à escala do Sistema Terrestre. Por consequência, ao ser necessário
ampliarmos a escala do bem, também a escala da comunidade tem de ser ampliada à
totalidade de sujeitos que partilham o uso do mesmo sistema, formando desta forma uma
verdadeira comunidade de interesses comuns. Como consequência da impossibilidade de
divisão do bem ambiente, o papel da Ecologia Humana como ponte entre as ciências
naturais e o direito, será o de estudar e propor soluções de auto-organização, no sentido
de harmonizar as interdependências humanas globais que se estabelecem pela mútua
dependência relativamente ao uso de um mesmo Sistema Comum.
45
2.3. Um sistema jurídico baseado numa visão do mundo obsoleta
No contexto de um percurso histórico em que a existência humana chegou a ser
formulada como uma realidade exterior e autónoma à natureza e/ou ecossistema global,
é natural que as construções sociais sejam também um reflexo da história dessas
mundivisões. Por se tratar de um campo do conhecimento autónomo e fundado em
princípios e estruturas lógico-formais próprias, as construções jurídicas refletem
inevitavelmente o posicionamento ontológico do homem no seio da natureza. A valoração
jurídica do meio ambiente possui uma natureza cultural e por isso tende a expressar uma
condição ontológica antropocêntrica. “Por outras palavras, o meio ambiente somente foi
introduzido como suporte fático e, posteriormente, como fato jurídico em virtude de sua
internalização pela cultura humana, ou seja, pela sua representação lógico-formal em
normas jurídico-ambientais (Garcia 2016:90).”
A transmutação do “bem ambiente” de suporte fáctico sobre o qual se exercem
diferentes formas de apropriação - direitos de soberania, propriedade ou de uso - para a
consagração como bem jurídico autónomo com valor per si, é o resultado do processo
histórico da destruição desse próprio “bem ambiente”, que transformou um bem
abundante e que se pensava infinito, num bem escasso e limitado cuja deterioração
provoca sérios danos às sociedades humanas e ameaça mesmo a sobrevivência da própria
espécie. Este será mesmo o motivo que transformou um bem que desde sempre foi
juridicamente irrelevante como um “valor” humanamente reconhecido. Como explica
Garcia (2016:88) “A relação do Direito com a realidade, ou seja, do mundo das ideias
(desdobramento da manifestação cultural e ética humana) com o mundo dos factos, dá-se
por meio de vínculos previamente estabelecidos ou admitidos pelas normas. Quando
determinado acontecimento é constatado, a ocorrência de efeitos jurídicos dependerá de
seu reconhecimento por alguma norma e a correspondente atribuição de consequências
jurídicas”.
Para chegarmos ao atual nível de juridicidade, o meio ambiente evoluiu da absoluta
irrelevância jurídica para a consagração como direito e bem fundamental, tendo invadido
46
um grande número de textos constitucionais por todo mundo. Com uma variedade
alargada de expressões para traduzir este fenómeno natural complexo, a Constituição
Portuguesa no seu artigo 66º optou pelo conceito de um “ambiente sadio e ecologicamente
equilibrado”. Dado o seu carácter sistémico o “bem ambiente” é incompatível com a
delimitação territorial dos Estados, deu origem a que as definições deste bem usem
recorrentemente conceitos indeterminados e de delimitação imprecisa. Aliás, a dimensão
sistémica do bem a proteger foi já percecionada no interior dos próprios Estados, uma vez
que essa é uma factualidade inultrapassável: “[...] um Estado constitucional ecológico
pressupõe uma conceção integrada ou integrativa do ambiente e, consequentemente, um
direito integrado e integrativo do ambiente. [...] o conceito de direito integrado do
ambiente [...] aponta para a necessidade de uma proteção global e sistemática que não se
reduza à defesa isolada dos componentes ambientais naturais (ar, luz, água, solo vivo e
subsolo, flora, fauna) ou dos componentes humanos (paisagem, património cultural e
construído, poluição), (Gomes Canotilho, 2010:8).”
O Sistema Terrestre, embora percecionado e vivido diariamente pelos sentidos, foi ao
longo da história da humanidade um campo fértil para o inexplicável, para o
desenvolvimento de visões místicas ou conceitos indeterminados. Numa total ausência
de informação sobre as características do Sistema Terrestre e dos fatores que determinam
a seu funcionamento, não se conhecendo sequer a existência de um estado favorável e de
limites para a sua manutenção, o resultado inevitável seria a sua invisibilidade social e a
sua não consideração como fator essencial à construção de uma organização capaz de
proteger as fundações da vida. Não só não se conhecia, como a possibilidade de as
atividades humanas poderem estar a provocar uma mudança neste estado favorável eram
questões que ultrapassavam os limites hipotéticos do saber e fazer humano. O clima
estável e o funcionamento regular dos ciclos da vida eram-nos apresentados como dados
pré-adquiridos e imutáveis.
Neste cenário, onde o complexo e inexplicável se confunde com o inexistente, o
místico e o sagrado, não era possível reconhecer este estado favorável como um fator da
maior relevância, e que pudesse ser definível e internalizado como um valor vital para a
vida e organização das sociedades humanaa.
Aceitando a perspetiva do direito como construção humana resultante do processo
histórico-cultural da nossa espécie, Mosset Iturraspe (1999:303) define bem jurídico
como “bem é tudo o que pode satisfazer uma necessidade. Um bem jurídico é todo bem
material ou imaterial – de valor económico ou não – que satisfaz necessidades do
47
homem”.
Tal condição deve-se à exigência, considerada básica e elementar pela teoria geral do
direito, de que os factos reconhecidos pelas normas jurídicas possuam relevância para a
vida humana. Da mesma forma, aquilo que for considerado inexpressivo ou irrelevante,
é igualmente ignorado pelo Direito. Esta tarefa primordial valorativa, coloca o Direito na
posição crítica de permanentemente necessitar de se compatibilizar com a evolução do
conhecimento, procedendo a uma reinterpretação da realidade tendo em conta as suas
várias dimensões e os novos contextos, evitando ficar preso a distorções cognitivas dos
seus próprios dogmas. Conscientes da fragilidade de todas as construções humanas e da
enorme responsabilidade que cabe às ciências jurídicas nesta tarefa de interpretar e
valorar a realidade conhecida, sabemos que a única forma de corresponder a este desafio
será de estabelecer um permanente diálogo entre os seus conceitos e o seu modus
operandi, e a evolução do conhecimento científico e social. Mas nas ciências naturais,
como nas ciências da vida, todos os avanços são simultaneamente geradores de liberdade
e de novas responsabilidades: “A aplicação técnica das novas ciências da vida (o conjunto
das chamadas biotecnologias) alargou, de forma inédita o âmbito do fazer humano;
podemos dizer que, pela primeira vez, na história da humanidade, o homem dispõe de um
saber que lhe permite exercer poder sobre a natureza, sobre a vida e sobre a morte, isto é,
sobre o que antigamente fugia à sua alçada e era considerado fatalidade ou, de um modo
determinista, uma sequência puramente casual de acontecimentos.
No entanto, este poder, libertador e gerador de autonomia, tem-se revelado ambíguo e
perigoso: desencadeia efeitos extremamente benéficos e simultaneamente ações cujas as
consequências perigosas têm uma dimensão cósmica e muitas vezes irreversível. É
justamente isto o que nos assusta e inquieta, exigindo-nos pela primeira vez,
responsabilidade. De facto, tudo o que nos envolve pode, hoje, pela primeira vez,
depender inteiramente de nós. (Silva, 2002.10)”
O estudo recente sobre as consequências das ações humanas sobre o ambiente, trouxe-
nos a informação sobre o funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre, e esse “ambiente
ecologicamente sadio” abandonou a condição de conceito indeterminado de contornos
espaciais e qualitativos incertos, para se traduzir no espaço intangível de segurança bem
definido, que não conhece fronteiras. Isto é, hoje conseguimos identificar quais são os
elementos que determinam o funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre e de que forma e em
que medida ao alterarmos esses fatores, interferimos no funcionamento do sistema do
qual somos parte. De facto, hoje, tudo o que nos envolve, desde o próprio genoma da
48
nossa espécie, ao “código genético” do funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre, tudo pode
realmente depender inteiramente de nós. O facto de termos provocado estas alterações
aos mecanismos e condições essenciais de suporte da vida, deu-nos acesso a um
conhecimento que gerou um enorme poder e uma tremenda responsabilidade à ação
humano no seu todo.
Esta possibilidade requer por parte do direito do ambiente uma intervenção que
ultrapassa a sua consideração como “ramo de direito”, e convoca-o para uma evolução
que seja capaz de representar uma nova mundividência em que os elementos não-
territoriais que asseguram a condições biogeofísicas da vida, estejam no centro em torno
do quais se regulam as relações que se realizam entre todos os seres humanos, numa
escala global.
Ora, como afirma Garcia (2016:89), “A primeira questão a ser enfrentada pelo Direito
Ambiental é o de identificar seu objeto principal ou centro de tutela. Em que pese ser
possível apresentar a resposta “meio ambiente” de maneira rápida e lógica, o que se busca,
verdadeiramente responder é de qual meio ambiente se está efetivamente tratando.” Por
muito que o bem em causa não se confine às divisões político-administrativas, o carácter
global, indivisível e interdependente do estado funcional favorável do Sistema Terrestre
é uma factualidade inultrapassável. Constituindo as fundações da vida como a
conhecemos até hoje, o seu valor é obviamente vital, inquestionável e incontroverso. É o
meta-valor, que assegura e suporta as condições de vida na Terra, e da própria espécie
humana. Neste sentido, como refere o Acórdão de 02/07/1996 Proc. Nª. 483/96 do
Supremo Tribunal de Justiça: “Repare-se neste pormenor tão simples quanto
incontroverso: se as condições reais levarem à desarticulação dos meios ambientais que
permitam, efetivamente viver, o direito à vida não passará de uma abstração teórica de
curto prazo. (…).“ Ao não abarcar o “bem ambiente” na sua verdadeira escala, o direito
corre o perigo de ocultar o seu verdadeiro sentido, e o seu dever-ser. Neste acórdão, “o
nosso Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, realiza a difícil tarefa de organizar (de forma
estratégica e prudente) a passagem de uma intencionalidade espiritual, um dever-ser
patente nas normas constitucionais, para um "ser" realizado por esse espírito, e tornar-se
num promotor efetivo do processo histórico-cultural, apontando o afinamento da
estratégia de ação, assumindo a dimensão vital do jurídico no seu sentido modelador da
vida, perante aquela que é considerada como a principal crise com que a humanidade
alguma vez se defrontou (Magalhães 2005:96).”
49
Esta dimensão qualitativa - the healthiness – do Sistema Terrestre, escapa às
abordagens jurídico-dogmáticas tradicionais sobre o ambiente, pelo facto de ser
impossível isolar um determinado ecossistema, região ou país, da qualidade do sistema
global. Isto é, as principais características do “bem ambiental” são a sua globalidade e
intangibilidade – o Sistema Terrestre é global e indivisível, e a qualidade do seu estado
depende da sua estrutura biogeoquímica global, uma vez que esta vai ser determinante no
funcionamento dos seus fluxos e balanços energéticos – os chamados ciclos
biogeofísicos. Estas características obrigam a que a proteção do ambiente se alargue à
proteção de bens intangíveis naturais, e à escala em que o bem existe – a global.
Ora, o cumprimento da função modeladora do direito e de concretizar esta passagem
de um dever-ser de um ambiente “sadio e ecologicamente equilibrado”, para a construção
de uma sociedade humana adaptada ao funcionamento do Sistema Terrestre e aos seus
limites, implica uma nova visão do mundo em que esse “bem ambiente” será mais do que
a soma dos conceitos indeterminados presentes numa alargada quantidade de
Constituições Estatais e em Tratados Internacionais. O desafio que o Antropoceno coloca
ao Direito é o de através de um exercício de interdisciplinaridade se tornar numa ciência
promotora do processo histórico-cultural que leve ao reconhecimento “deste ambiente
sadio e ecologicamente equilibrado”, como um bem jurídico na sua verdadeira escala – a
global - e relativamente ao seu verdadeiro sujeito – a comunidade humana na sua
globalidade.
A relevância vital do Safe Operating Space for Humankind, é uma factualidade
inultrapassável. Só que este fenómeno agora conhecido e definido, não é ainda
socialmente reconhecido por nenhuma norma, nem a realização de benefícios ou danos
no estado deste bem comum vital é desencadeadora de consequências jurídicas. A
necessidade da sua internalização por parte da organização das sociedades humanas,
parece uma evidência. O facto de este bem existir dentro e fora de todas as soberanias,
não pode ser um obstáculo ao seu reconhecimento como um fenómeno relevante para a
humanidade. Isto é, a partir do momento em que determinado facto ecológico se torna da
maior relevância para o ser humano, é natural que esse bem que até ali tenha sido
considerado irrelevante, seja reconhecido como bem e jurídico.
Não só o bem jurídico é uma construção puramente humana que existe num processo
de permanente evolução e aperfeiçoamento histórico, como também lembra Bosselmann
(2015:61), as construções jurídicas humanas existentes, não são um valor per si: “It may
be time now to remind ourselves that the law has no intrinsic value, but is a mere human
50
construct intended to govern ourselves in a civilized manner. However, what could be
more civilized than caring for the conditions that make human life possible in the first
place. It is here where the concern for the integrity of life as a whole has its place. And it
is here where a renewed sense of the rule of law must have its beginning.”
O principio de tudo, da possibilidade da construção de uma civilização humana como
a que possuímos hoje dependeu destas condições favoráveis intangíveis que hoje
conseguimos identificar e mensurar. E a partir do momento que os limites do planeta do
Holoceno são quantificáveis, essa integridade pode ser usada como medida de legalidade
do agir humano.
Isto é, o “bem ambiente” estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre, como fenómeno
natural do mundo real, que anteriormente se aparentava como imutável e infinito cujo o
fazer humano era incapaz sequer de o atingir ou alterar, passou de juridicamente
irrelevante e inexistente, à mais valiosa herança recebida pela humanidade da natureza.
Esse novo bem, resultante de uma valoração enunciada por uma norma jurídica, irá ser
irradiador de direitos e deveres que deverão constituir a base organizativa do uso regulado
deste bem comum global, da qual poderá emergir uma nova harmonização das relações
humanas que agora se alargam ao global.
2.4. A desmaterialização do Bem Ambiental
O facto de o estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre ser, como o próprio nome indica,
um sistema, e como tal ser essencialmente composto por elementos não-territoriais e
intangíveis, isto é, pelos ciclos biogeofísicos que se dispersam e atravessam todo o
planeta, não pode constituir um obstáculo intransponível à sua qualificação como
fenómeno ecológico juridicamente relevante para o ser humano.
A existência de coisas incorpóreas, há muito que é reconhecida pela cultura humana.
O conceito de coisa incorpórea e a sua estrutura de definição buscam as suas origens na
filosofia grega, mais especificamente da escola aristotélica: de facto, Aristóteles diz-nos
que coisas incorpóreas são aquelas que não podem ser tocadas. O que pode ser percebido
com os sentidos é um corpus, uma coisa corpórea; o que não pode ser tocado é uma coisa
incorpórea, apenas percetível através do intelecto. Os juristas romanos seguiram os passos
51
da cultura grega, e classificaram os bens como: res corporales e res incorporales.
Segundo Mousourakis (2012:121,122) “With respect to the res in nostro patrimonio (or
res in commercio), a distinction was drawn between corporeal (res corporales) and
incorporeal thing (res incorporales). The former term referred to things that could be
touched or perceived by the senses such as a garment, an ox, a table or a house. The term
res incorporales, on the other hand, denoted intangible things no capable of sensory
perception that the law recognizes and protect, such a real and personal rights. (…)
Because incorporeal objects could not be physically seized as required for possession to
exist, they thus could not be acquired or transferred by any method involving the
acquisition or transfer of possession.”
Coisas corpóreas são aquelas que pela sua natureza são dotadas de existência física,
material, que podem ser tocadas, como um terreno, uma casa, etc... . Por outro lado, coisas
incorpóreas, são aquelas coisas que embora não possam ser tocadas, possuem uma
existência abstrata ou ideal, isto é, existem para a lei; como por exemplo, uma herança,
usufruto ou uma obrigação. Inicialmente, apenas os direitos reais eram considerados res
incorporales. Posteriormente, como resultado de uma luta liderada pelos dos intelectuais
do século XVIII, que reivindicavam reconhecimento das “ideias” ou “criações do espírito
humano”, segundo o principio de que a obra é independente de qualquer fixação ou
materialização (Ascenção 1992.62), os direitos pessoais foram igualmente reconhecidos
como coisa incorpórea. O reconhecimento “obra humana” como coisa incorpórea, isto é,
de que a ideia per si, depois de tomar forma no foro íntimo do autor e de ser exteriorizada
por qualquer meio de forma que seja possível ser captada pelos sentidos, teve o seu
reconhecimento como objeto juridicamente relevante em 1710 através da célebre lei do
copyright da Rainha Ana de Inglaterra. Através desta lei o direito de reprodução, já não
pertencia em favor dos impressores, mas já em favor dos autores, constituindo
simultaneamente um direito pessoal do autor e um novo objeto jurídico imaterial. Isto é,
este normativo legal permitiu estabelecer uma divisão jurídica entre o direito intangível
do autor e o suporte material em que a obra está gravada, criando desta forma um objeto
jurídico intangível – a ideia, a criação intelectual do autor. É esta separação, que nos
permite por exemplo, que ao comprarmos um livro apenas adquiramos a titularidade
sobre o papel e tinta que constitui o suporte da gravação da obra, e não os sobre os direitos
relativos à obra que está ali gravada. De juridicamente inexistente até ao início do Século
XVIII, a ideia intangível do autor, tornou-se, na opinião dos intelectuais da época, na
“mais sagrada de todas as propriedades”.
52
Estas soluções técnico-jurídicas constituem alguns dos alicerces estruturais em que
se baseia a nossa organização social. Por exemplo, sem esta separação legal entre a ideia
intangível de um autor e o suporte tangível onde esta ideia é registada, não teria sido
possível o desenvolvimento do conhecimento nem sua disseminação em massa. Mas o
reconhecimento jurídico de objetos intangíveis não se ficou pelo copyright. O património
cultural imaterial reconhecido através da UNESCO, ou o valor intangível das empresas
em direito comercial, onde frequentemente o valor dos ativos intangíveis de uma empresa
são incomparavelmente superiores aos ativos tangíveis, são outros exemplos em que a
necessidade de organizar o uso de algo ou a relevância dos bens em causa, justificaram a
busca por novas soluções por parte do direito. Os objetos jurídicos intangíveis foram um
fator determinante de desenvolvimento e um suporte estrutural crítico na criação da
civilização em que vivemos hoje.
A analogia entre esses objetos de direito intangíveis e o Sistema de Terrestre igualmente
intangível pode também ser crucial para representar e compreender a funcionalidade
global e indivisível do Sistema da Terrestre na nossa sociedade, bem como o valor real
dos ecossistemas naturais, onde o valor intangível dos seus serviços para a humanidade é
incomparavelmente superior ao valor tangível das infraestruturas naturais que produzem
esses serviços. Atualmente, por exemplo, o valor das florestas que são vitais para a
manutenção desse estado favorável, das nossas vidas e as futuras gerações só se tornam
visíveis nas transações financeiras e económicas da sociedade através da destruição e
transformação dessas florestas em madeira. Na verdade, também na natureza existem
outros tipos de património para além daqueles que podem ser vistos e tocados. Isto obriga
a pensar o conceito de capital natural, não apenas como o espaço e as infraestruturas
ecológicas tangíveis, mas a considerar o seu conjunto, como a soma resultante da
totalidade da infraestrutura ecológica tangível e da totalidade alterações químicas
biogeofísicas positivas que constituem os serviços ecológicos globais intangíveis. Feitas
as contas, tendo em conta o caracter vital destes serviços e a sua escassez, os ativos
intangíveis naturais terão uma importância muito superior aos proporcionados pelos
recursos físicos tangíveis na produção de bens e serviços.
Este processo histórico é da maior importância para percebermos como este processo
de desmaterialização do objeto do direito foi um fator estrutural de profundo significado
na construção das sociedades modernas, e como as soluções jurídicas organizativas são
um fator estrutural dos modelos sociais.
53
2.5 A natureza intangível como conexão entre Sistema Social e Sistema Terrestre.
Num trabalho recente sobre o Global Commons no Antropoceno (Nakicenovic,N.,
Rockstrom,J., Gaffney,O. 2016), identificam-se alguns biomas críticos como bens
comuns globais: “The critical biomes (Figura 3) that regulate regional energy flows,
hydrological flows, and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and provide stable
habitats for living species are under threat. These biomes are interconnected with each
other – moisture feedback from the Amazon rainforest affects the temperature and
function of the tropical monsoon system, which in turn may interact with the global
climate system. Critical biomes play a decisive role in regulating the overall status of the
life-support system on Earth, that is, how well Earth can support world development.
Significantly, the resilience of ecosystems, critical biomes, and the biosphere as a whole
determines the degree of feedback (negative or positive, weak or strong) to the climate
system, which regulates the degree of global warming, which in turn, generates a direct
feedback to the biosphere, affecting all ecosystems.”
54
Figura 3. Global Commons in the Anthropocene: World Development in a Stable and Resilient Planet. Nakicenovic,N., Rockstrom,J., Gaffney,O. and Zimm,C., IIASA Working Paper – WP16-019. P.29,30. 2016
55
Como observamos na figura 3, os critérios que estiveram na base da escolha destes Global
Commons in the Antropocene tiveram por base um critério qualitativo-funcional, à qual
acresce a dimensão da quantidade em que estes serviços qualitativos são prestados,
resultando na definição das infraestruturas ecológicas que possuem maior relevância na
resiliência do planeta. Isto é, da soma da qualidade e da quantidade dos global ecosystem
services prestados, resulta a sua classificação como Critical Biomas. No entanto esta
listagem merece da nossa parte a seguinte análise crítica:
a) Biodiversidade global – embora seja abordada na ótica da perda total em número
de espécies, ela não deixa de estar territorialmente vinculada aos Estados onde essas
espécies e comunidades; habitats e ecossistemas estão localizados. O mesmo também se
pode referir quanto ao país de origem dos recursos genéticos, isto é, “Country of origin
of genetic resources – The country which possess those genetic resources in situ
conditions”, conforme definido no artigo 2º da Convenção da Diversidade Biológica. A
biodiversidade possui uma existência material que é em grande medida geograficamente
delimitável, e como tal, reivindicada pelos Estados que exercem a jurisdição sobre os
territórios onde a biodiversidade está localizada;
b) Os ciclos biogeoquímicos - elementos não-territoriais e intangíveis, com uma
circulação permanente de caracter global não geograficamente delimitável, e cuja divisão
jurídica ou apropriação física são impossíveis;
c) Biomas Críticos – vários tipos de infraestruturas ecológicas que prestam esses serviços
de ecossistema de impacto e interesse global, possuindo dessa forma um valor
determinante na manutenção e resiliência do Sistema Terrestre (Florestas Tropicais,
Florestas Boreais, Criosfera), mas que são territorialmente delimitáveis. Nesta listagem
identifica-se mesmo a sua localização específica, como por exemplo: Amazónia,
Florestas Tropicais da Ásia do Sul, Florestas Boreais da Europa ou os Glaciares de
Montanha de todo o mundo.
Se de um ponto de vista das Ciências do Sistema Terrestre, a identificação destes
biomas críticos faz todo o sentido, já a sua classificação como Global Commons, merece
dúvidas da nossa parte. Como conceito jurídico que é, e segundo a própria definição da
UNEP- “The ‘Global Commons’ refers to resource domains or areas that lie outside of
the political reach of any one nation State. Thus, international law identifies four global
56
commons namely: The High Seas; the Atmosphere; Antarctica; and, Outer Space. These
areas have historically been guided by the principle of the common heritage of humankind
- the open access doctrine or the mare liberum (free sea for everyone) in the case of the
High Seas. Despite efforts by governments or individuals to establish property rights or
other forms of control over most natural resources, the Global Commons have remained
an exception.”
O critério que fundamenta esta classificação proposta para os Global Commons in
the Anthopocene não é o particular interesse científico, estético ou natural de um ou outro
bioma, mas sim a importância qualitativa em termos do impacto que estes biomas críticos
possuem nos ciclos biogeoquímicos globais e a consequente influência destes nos fluxos
energéticos, que no conjunto da sua interação são determinantes na manutenção do estado
favorável do Sistema Terrestre. Ao incluir nesta lista de Global Commons para o
Antropoceno os ciclos biogeoquímicos, os biomas críticos e a biodiversidade, esta
proposta mistura no mesmo conceito elementos territoriais ou territorialmente
delimitáveis com elementos não-territoriais. Como é sabido, do ponto de vista jurídico, e
de acordo com o principio da territorialidade, não é possível classificar como Global
Commons parcelas de território que estão sob a jurisdição de um determinado Estado. É
uma ilusão pensar que um Estado que possua no interior no seu território algum destes
biomas críticos, vá abdicar da soberania sobre essa parcela de território em favor de um
regime legal de Global Commons ou Património Comum da Humanidade.
Reconhecendo a importância determinante destes biomas nos ciclos biogeoquímicos
globais, a solução passará inevitavelmente pela procura de novos conceitos baseados nos
conhecimentos científicos entretanto desenvolvidos e que procedem a uma leitura da
realidade não exclusivamente territorial.
Sendo certo que todos estes biomas críticos são territorialmente delimitáveis e
tangíveis, estando sob a jurisdição de um ou mais Estados (com exceção da Antártida e
do Ártico), e que o motivo desta classificação é a sua contribuição determinante na
manutenção do estado favorável do Sistema Terrestre, somos obrigados a chegar à
conclusão de que o que é verdadeiramente comum a toda a humanidade são os
benefícios(os “global ecosystem services”) realizados por esses biomas nos ciclos
biogeofísicos globais. Por outras palavras, o que é realmente Global Common nestes
biomas, são os serviços intangíveis prestados a todo o Sistema da Terrestre, e não a
infraestrutura natural física em si, que está sob a jurisdição de um ou mais Estados. Quer
isto dizer que se repudiarmos a tentação materialística e territorialista, e procedermos a
57
uma distinção jurídica entre os serviços intangíveis dos ecossistemas e a infraestrutura
tangível natural que os realizou, isto é, reconhecendo que a natureza não é apenas o
conjunto dos bens tangíveis que formam o ecossistema (por exemplo florestas tropicais)
e o espaço geográfico delimitável e mensurável em hectares, mas também o ativo
intangível concretizado pelas alterações positivas nos ciclos biogeoquímicos que ali se
processam, podemos criar uma representação da natureza com uma maior capacidade de
a retratar e traduzir o seu real valor.
Dado que estes ciclos existem apenas na escala global, só a criação de um objeto de
direito intangível global pode representar este fenómeno natural da maior relevância para
a humanidade – o Sistema Terrestre. Só através do reconhecimento de um objeto legal
com as mesmas características do “bem ambiental” – global e intangível - poderemos
ultrapassar este dilema entre a delimitação territorial das sobernais e o funcionamento
global do Sistema Terrestre.
A realidade é que o nosso planeta não é apenas uma área geográfica com 510 milhões
de km2. Na verdade, todos os planetas conhecidos têm uma área geográfica que pode ser
dimensionada em km2. O que os outros planetas não possuem é um sistema intangível
acoplado ao planeta físico, capaz de sustentar a vida, tal como a conhecemos. Do ponto
de vista jurídico, o planeta tem apenas uma existência: a área do território. Essa visão
unidimensional deixa de fora a expressão mais notável e vital da natureza - o
funcionamento do Sistema da Terra como um sistema de suporte de vida único e
complexo.
Se aceitarmos que a natureza possui igualmente uma dimensão intangível, que o
Sistema Terrestre é o nosso principal Global Common, e encontramos forma de
representar esta realidade factual na nossa organização social, reconhecendo-o como bem
juridicamente relevante do qual deverão emergir consequências jurídicas, novas formas
de coordenação global podem ser imaginadas.
Se, tal como nos direitos de autor, em que existe uma separação jurídica entre a obra
e o suporte físico em que está gravada, procedermos igualmente aqui a uma separação
legal entre os serviços intangíveis produzidos pela infraestrutura natural tangível que
forneceu esses serviços, e esses serviços intangíveis se tornassem socialmente visíveis
num novo objeto legal intangível global, esses serviços passariam a ter sua existência
reconhecida no novo bem comum global, dessa forma os global Earth System services
poderiam tornar-se em ativos económicos intangíveis. O sistema usado para capturar na
escala global todos estes serviços de ecossistema que contribuem para a manutenção dos
58
ciclos biogeofísicos num estado favorável (o património comum intangível global),
também poderia ser usado para capturar os danos que lhes são infringidos, e dessa forma
construir um sistema justo de contabilidade.
Se a esta contabilidade de fluxos positivos e negativos para a manutenção dos ciclos
biogeofísicos, lhe associarmos um sistema de pagamentos pelas utilizações que
contribuem para nos afastarmos do espaço de manobra seguro para a humanidade, e de
compensações pelos benefícios que contribuem para a manutenção deste espaço,
estaremos a promover a de forma estrutural a construção de uma sociedade sustentável.
Ao compensar o Estado que tem jurisdição sobre o território onde foi produzido o
serviço que beneficia o estado do Sistema Terrestre, indiretamente, estamos a promover
proteção e restauração das infraestruturas naturais, promovendo a equidade e a justiça
entre os povos e influenciando a governança desses territórios, sem, no entanto, ameaçar
a soberania dos Estados.
O reconhecimento de objetos legais intangíveis não é novo nas ciências jurídicas,
pelo que o trabalho que nos propusemos realizar aponta para a necessidade de atribuirmos
relevância jurídica à natureza intangível como forma de ultrapassarmos o impasse
estrutural da não-adaptação da nossa organização social ao funcionamento global do
Sistema Terrestre, tendo na sua base nos seguintes argumentos:
a) Os processos biogeofísicas intangíveis são fenómenos naturais que determinam
o funcionamento e o estado do Sistema Terreste, os chamados - core drivers -
neste sentido são absolutamente vitais para toda a humanidade;
b) Porque mesmo apesar de serem atualmente considerados como
"externalidades" económicas, o valor dos serviços dos ecossistemas para a
humanidade é incomparavelmente superior ao valor tangível das infraestruturas
naturais que os produzem;
c) Porque apesar de serem hoje economicamente invisíveis, a ausência de uma
provisão regular destes serviços tem como consequência prejuízos económicos
muito superiores ao custo de provisão;
59
d) Hoje possuímos as ferramentas científicas necessárias para definir este bem
natural intangível global, e o seu estado favorável- o Safe Operating Space for
Humankind;
e) Porque só através do reconhecimento da sua existência é possível establecer um
regime legal que organize o seu uso. Essa é também uma condição estrutural
para ser possíve promover a sua manutenção permanente;
f) Porque o reconhecimento dos serviços de ecossistema globais produzidos pelas
infraestruturas ecológicas como ativos intangíveis é a forma de introduzir o
trabalho da natureza nas nossas sociedades sem necessariamente implicar a
destruição da infraestrutura natural;
g) Porque o reconhecimento da existência da dimensão intangível da natureza é
uma condição estrutural para construir equidade e justiça nas relações entre os
seres humanos à escala global, e de essa forma promover igualmente a
adaptação da comunidade humana à forma de funcionamento do Sistema
Terrestre;
h) Porque este reconhecimento é uma condição estrutural para construir uma
economia de manutenção do Sistema da Terrestre e restauro da nossa Casa
Comum;
i) A utilização de objetos legais intangíveis no que diz respeito ao Sistema
Terrestre é crucial para tornar visível o que realmente importa e nos une a todos
como uma comunidade global de interesses vitais interdependentes e comuns;
j) Porque a construção de uma ficção jurídica relativamente ao “espaço de
operação segura para a humanidade” como um património comum é também a
forma de construímos um “território virtual” onde a Humanidade poderá basear
a sua organização, e onde os interesses das gerações futuras poderão estar
representados independentemente da existência jurídica das pessoas concretas
futuras que irão depender da proteção desses interesses.
60
Esta proposta de construção de um suporte jurídico global relativamente a um
fenómeno natural ao qual, em nosso entender, deve ser atribuída relevância jurídica, tem
como objetivo transcrever legalmente a complexidade das conexões entre seres humanos
que se realizam através do uso do Sistema Terrestre. Com a presença deste novo elemento
no contexto do Direito Internacional, devem emergir um conjunto de direitos e obrigações
correspondentes, que obrigam a repensar a relação entre todos os povos do mundo.
A gestão do uso do Sistema Terrestre implica uma "gestão do sistema" que transcende
a "gestão-territorial" dos Estados e tem como objetivo principal a responsabilidade pelo
bem comum de todos, incluindo as gerações futuras e outras formas de vida com as quais
compartilhamos o planeta.
61
Chapter 3
Global Free Riders ...4
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”
Albert Einstein
3.1. Tragedy Without Territory
It is now widely accepted that climate change is a “tragedy of the commons” on a
global scale. When a tragedy is occurring simultaneously inside and outside all borders,
it does not comply with the principle of territoriality of jurisdictions or of norms. It is a
superimposed common reality in all territories, without having a territory. Also, in the
dominant view of “territorial obsession”, existing is to have territory. Being global is not
having territory. The underlying principle is the assumption that everything that goes
beyond our limits should be considered as external to us – an externality in the words of
economists. Pollution from an aircraft is an externality for the economy and when
performed outside the airspace of states, it becomes a case for jurists.
Based on this vision, one can define common areas where theoretically all of humanity
becomes sovereign over the international commons (res communis omnium), in which
the “common” is what is left over (open sea, seabed, Antarctica), the remains of what
could not be seized. Pureza (1998:26) considers that “the res communis own regime as a
traditional framework for common international spaces is a sequence rather than an
4 Capítulo realizado em co-autoria com Francisco Ferreira.
62
antithesis of the national sovereignty principle”. The common is not that by which its
nature and characteristics is truly common but what remains after appropriation.
In the confrontation between this one-dimensional simplification of the world and the
highly complex and deeply interconnected Earth System, we are flooded with more
questions than answers: Whose tragedy? Where does the responsibility for acting lie?
Who has the instruments to act for the benefit of all? How can we speak about benefiting
everyone if humanity, being global, has no territory, a fact that by itself gives rise to its
legal non-existence? Yet, are there any organized people in a territorial political
community that do not belong to humanity? If humanity exists materially, and is just one
single family with a common origin, will it cease to exist just because it doesn’t exist in
a formally organized political territory? Can the concept of sovereignty exist without the
prospect of an unlimited temporal projection into the next generations?
As sophisticated as societies and their technologies can be, the organization of social
life leads us invariably to the same primary questions: What is mine? What is yours?
What is common or public, or what doesn't belong to anyone? But the reality is always
more complex than these simplified operations. To the questions whose simple solutions
of separation serve as responses, we can add another: What is simultaneously mine, yours
and everyone’s in an overlapping and symbiotic way?
As we will see throughout this book, there is no simple answer to this complex
question, especially if we look at property not only as a form of ownership over something
but also as an organizing tool of social relations. It is at the crossroads of belonging to all,
owned by no one where ‘belonging to’ does not have any clear legal definition, and whose
outcome is often resolved by resorting to res nullius. Kiss (1982:122) came very close to
the essence of the issue when he asked: “How can a good that belongs to no one be subject
to a legal regime?” From this paradox, and because legal existence is inextricably linked
to some form of "ownership", emerges what was classified as the doctrine of “complex
property”.
New questions always elicit new answers. However, it is interesting to note that even
as we surpass the Earth’s borders and launch into the conquest of space, the same classic
questions invariably arise. Oosterlinck (1996:1), in his article “Tangible and Intangible
Property in Outer Space”, states: “Property in space is certainly one of the most important
issues for the future not only in the context of the more classical form of tangible property
such as minerals but also intangible property such as orbital slots on the geostationary
orbit, frequencies, etc.”
63
Only with clear and precise legal answers to these primary questions might there
surface an element of stability, without which the construction of any organization is
impossible, and therefore the construction of any future. Transferred from one earthly
reality dominated by territorial and tangible dimensions, we are now involved in a spatial
reality dominated by apparent emptiness and the intangible. Although within an
environment that is strange and cannot be 'comprehended' by our senses, the ability to
explore new resources and carry out activities that open new possibilities on Earth created
the need to internally organize our relationships concerning the use of these new
intangible spaces; therefore the classical questions arise again, with new variations.
The possibility to regulate the use of certain goods involves the ability to first describe,
measure, locate and name them, and then to classify them. In other words, in order to
regulate the use of a certain good, we have to have defined it.
The legitimacy of a theoretical construction always depends on its explanatory
capacity of reality. In Space, unlike on Earth, the classification of any legal regime should
take as its starting point the reality of the intrinsic characteristics of the goods and not a
previous theoretical construction later applied to the goods in question. This process,
whose initial impulse is the well-known reality, was similar to the approach carried out
by Roman law, which therefore continues to be used in Space today. According to
Oosterlinck (1996:2), “Under Roman Law, ‘Res’, or things, are classified into res
corporals and res incorporales”. It was in the Roman legal system where the “emptiness”
of space found a concept (res incorporales) to explain the new reality of the areas in
outer space or langrangian points, orbits including specific slots of certain orbits,
trajectories and to certain extended frequency spectrum. But even so, “Within res
corporals a certain number of things are excluded from trade ‘res quarum commercium
non est’, normally referred to res extra commercium”. That is, there are other features
regarding the nature of the good itself that makes its trading impossible, and are essential
elements in the definition of the legal regime.
This qualitative approach of Roman law differs immediately from the current approach
of monistic simplification, which is merely spatial/geographic, between the things that
are within the territory of states and those that are outside the jurisdiction of states.
For Roman law, the res communis omnium are available to all and cannot be owned
by anyone, not even by a state; for example, the air, rain and flowing river water, the sea
and shore. Therefore, the origin of the res communis omnium was not one territorial
64
division, an abstract criterion where the common is only the part remaining after
appropriations; the good’s intrinsic qualities led to the classification of its legal status.
It is very interesting to note the distinction between source and resource in the analysis
of the Roman legal system and the constraints that this distinction imposes on the use and
exercise of property. In practice, the Romans looked differently upon the issue when
considering the sea as a whole and when considering its constituents. In the former case,
they qualified it res communis omnium and the latter res nullius. Or, in more general
terms, “res communis differs from res nullius in that the source of resources cannot be
appropriated but the resources themselves are amenable to appropriation. (…) Res nullius
may be subject to appropriation through effective occupation and the will expressed by
the (new) owner to exercise ownership (corpore et animo)” (Oosterlinck 1996:2). The
intrinsic quality of the good and the possibility of its effective possession, to acquire
ownership, were decisive in the classification of the regime applied to it.
The “ocean the whole” was the source, which by its very nature was inappropriable,
and the fish in it one appropriable resource. The fact that it is inappropriable and common
to all, and therefore global, does not necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist or that some of
its constituents may be physically appropriable.
That being said, another crucial problem in defining the use and ownership regime was
the feature of inexhaustibility.
These resources were looked at as inexhaustible and their appropriation was
physically possible and would moreover only be partial, leaving thus the possibility
to others for future exploitation and use of the sea. Hugo Grotius evokes however,
though briefly, the possibility that fish could be an exhaustible resource of the sea
but in his view this would not alter the legal status of the sea as a whole.
(Oosterlinck 1996:3)
(…) if it were possible to prohibit any of these things, say for example, fishing, for
in a way it can be maintained that fish are exhaustible, still it would not be possible
to prohibit navigation, for the sea would not exhausted by that use. (Grotius 1916)
Therefore, in summary, we can pose some questions that are central in determining
property regimes: the possibility to appropriate the good or otherwise; if the good has an
in- or exhaustible character, or better yet, if the use of the good, without a physical
appropriation of it, may or may not lead to the exhaustion of it. Throughout the article,
65
the author, using a theoretical analogy between ocean and space, between source and
resource, analyses the existing legal regime and the options whose, in his opinion,
performance is still required in the organization of the use of this new frontier where
natural intangible resources are also limited (as in the spectrum of frequencies or the
geostationary orbit). As in all areas in which the law has been called into action, a precise
clarification of the various types of ownership is needed in space too, in order to organize
the relationships established around the use of sources and resources, which, by being
exhaustible, cannot be used according to a free-access regime.
Synthesizing the previous analysis:
1) Roman law distinguishes between the source that is not appropriable and the
resource that can be physically appropriated;
2) Grotius analyses the exhaustible or inexhaustible character, which is decisive
in defining the ownership regime, access or use of the good;
3) There are some uses of the good, although not corresponding to a physical
appropriation, that can lead to its exhaustion; and
4) In the outer space law, intangible property is not only confined to human
intellectual property.
Based on this summary, we realize that there are also natural intangible resources in
the Earth System that can be exhausted by some uses, although they can escape our
senses.
With climate change and the discovery that a stable climate is not an inexhaustible
factor, that is, the incorporales biogeophysical conditions that determine the state of the
Earth System have upper and lower limits and therefore are exhaustible, the “ownership”
of this resource is not realized through a physical occupation but rather through its use,
i.e., as a change in the qualitative state of its incorporeal characteristics.
One should consider the recent period of relative climate stability corresponding to the
Holocene (the last 11,700 years after the last ice age), which has been the basis for the
development of human civilizations (the history of the human species corresponds to a
period of about 200,000 years), as a particularly favourable state of the Earth System for
our species and for others that share the same ecological conditions. Every time a state,
company or an individual contributes to a change in the biogeochemical conditions of
this period of stability, which has benefited all humankind, an “externality” in the natural
66
res incorporales is generated, affecting all other users of this favourable state as less
resource (considering the stable state of the Earth System as a resource) will be available
to all agents.
The biogeochemical conditions that ensure a stable climate and the favourable
conditions of the Holocene are a natural intangible limited resource on Earth. The
favourable conditions of the Holocene arose in an evolutionary fashion throughout Earth's
history and it is through this evolutionary process involving the living part of the planet
as well as the geophysical that, for example, the relative concentrations of gases have
remained relatively constant through time. In essence, it is the integration of the
geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere that forms the intangible
Earth System, a single global system incapable of any legal abstraction of division.
In the source/resource Roman law perspective of analysis, the source of this favourable
state was the living biosphere and its interactions with the geophysical components. In
other words, the sources are the ecological infrastructures, and the resource the
biogeochemical conditions of the state of the Earth System.
We have been exploiting a vital resource we did not even know existed; nor did we
know if it was exhaustible or inexhaustible. The stable climate was, quite simply, a pre-
acquired data. The possibility of it being affected by human activity was a hypothesis that
did not even arise. The only value we truly recognized was in the sources of this unknown
global resource, which was the primary activator of their massive destruction (for
example, more than 80% of the original forests). This is a new situation in regard to its
possible classification. First, the natural resource is intangible and as such is not
physically appropriated. Second, this good does not recognize land, air or ocean borders.
It refers to a specific biochemical structure of the atmosphere and of the oceans, and its
integration with the geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere that
forms the intangible Earth System. In this respect, taking into account their characteristics
and the ways in which these res incorporales were being perceived over time, we can
identify some similar elements in four possible categories:
1) Terra Incognita: The intangible higher level of integration of the Earth
System, because it was unknown, can be considered a true terra incognita, an
“unknown space”, traditionally defined as regions never mapped or documented.
2) Res Nullius: The change in the biochemical structure at the higher level
of the Earth System can be considered to have been carried out under the open-
67
access regime condition, without rules, and in this sense is a res nullius. A good,
being a res incorporales and an unknown resource, is not suited to traditional
effective occupation, that is, a conscious will to ownership (corpore e animo).
However, its use can lead to its exhaustion.
3) Terra Nullius: In the Middle Ages, terra nullius was used to define
unclaimed or unoccupied territories, usually situated between fiefdoms and used
as dumps for garbage and deposits. Although intangible and non-territorial, the
fact that pollution legally disappears in the legal inexistence of the Earth System
allows us to consider it as a no-man's land, as the place to send waste, and
therefore an externality.
4) Res Communis Omnium: The Earth System is available to all and cannot
be appropriated by anyone, not even by a state. When this common property
extends to all humankind, the goods come to be considered as res omnium. They
are the common heritage of humankind so all human beings, both the present and
future generations, have the right to access them in a favourable state. However,
given its character as an exhaustible resource, it is necessary to create a legal
framework for both the use and the benefits realized in the common good.
3.2. Legal Black Hole
The “global” is therefore a new reality that is outside the legal frameworks built to
date. Within existing classifications, although we can find some elements that partially
adapt to this new reality, there is no legal asset that is simultaneously global and res
incorporales with the ability to reflect the harmful changes of the biochemical structure
of this favourable state of the Earth System. In the same manner, there is no way to capture
or account for the benefits provided by ecosystems in the maintenance of a favourable
state and enjoyed by all on a global scale. This new reality, already accepted and
recognized by science and clearly visible from space, still remains invisible to the law.
If we take as a starting point the current prevailing view that the common is not by its
nature truly common but what remains after appropriation, and if to this view we join the
legal invisibility of the higher level of the Earth System as a whole, what remains is not
a terra incognita but truly an incognita sine terra.
68
Terra incognita was the term used in the 15th and 16th centuries to mark unknown
land – the regions that had never been mapped or documented. After terra incognita had
disappeared from our maps and the planet had “become spherical”, where one could go
back to the point of origin without going backwards, a first major step was taken towards
realizing the overall unity of the planet at the geographical level of integration. We had,
however, to wait until almost the end of the 20th century to realize that the planet and its
operating system had more than a well-defined geographical, physical and palpable
dimension. A new reality was revealed when we discovered that the gases and substances
emitted into the atmosphere not only did not disappear in space but were also
interchanged with the land and the oceans, or that what was released into the sea did not
disappear into an ocean of infinity. Step by step, science was uncovering the upper level
of integration of an Earth System with global and complex interconnections that were
difficult to observe and define. However, despite their intangible and systemic nature,
these relationships are not an abstract abstraction. Although this higher level of
integration requires an abstraction to be considered as such and also explained, it is
nonetheless incredibly obvious, based in res incorporales, that we are talking about a real
world that everyone and everything is part of.
According to Melot & Pélisse (2008) we can say that, the Earth System is still
considered to be an unidentified legal object –resulting in a large legal black hole through
which vital positive flows (benefits to the state of the Earth System) and negative flows
(harm to the state of the Earth System) “disappear” as externalities. If the principle of
disjunction in natural sciences “hid everything which connects, interacts, and interferes”
in law, the paradigm of division “made believe that the arbitrary cut of the real was the
real itself” (Morin 1990:17). The concept of a “system” emphasises the concept of the
medium, that is, not only the physis as a material basis but also a mediation mechanism
of biogeochemical cycles and thermodynamics “in which reciprocal interactions inside
the system between the framework and its processes contribute to the regulation of
dynamics and the maintenance of their organization, in particular thanks to feedback
phenomena” (Lévêque 2002:40). This enables a well-defined characteristic functioning
as a single global complex ecosystem, which in reality is a life- support system for the
entire biosphere, including humans, on Earth. Of course, the biosphere itself is a critical
part of the Earth System, fully integrated with the geophysical components of the system
itself.
69
The legal inexistence of the favourable state of the Earth System as an object of law
is a structural problem that hides the most vital factors for human life and prevents the
construction of just and equitable solutions.
It is this vision that considers as remaining and res nullius everything that does not fit
the concept of national sovereignty, which turns us into true free riders of the Earth
System to which we belong and depend on, opening the doors for a collective tragedy.
3.3. The Greatest Market Failure
While it is true that it is materially or legally impossible to deny any human being free
access to use of the Earth System, the enjoyment of truly common goods without any
effective rules means that each individual is compelled to indefinitely increase his/her use
of common resources associated with a particular state of the Earth System (e.g., the
atmosphere with a particular concentration of constituent gases) because, if one does not
do it, others will. All users have an incentive to increase their use without concern for the
impact their actions may have on others (and perhaps themselves), and a disincentive in
promoting the maintenance and improvement of the common good.
This is the well-known tragedy of the commons model described by Hardin (1968), in
which free and unregulated use of a common resource based on the logic of first-come,
first-served results in a rational actor maximizing individual interest. This places the
common resource under such pressure that it becomes degraded and eventually exhausted
as a result of overexploitation, thus the “tragedy”. The dilemma is that if a user retracts
his/her use and the others do not, the resource will run out in the same way and the user
will have lost the short-term benefit that was obtained by others.
The model is now being reproduced on a global scale, with the difference that the good
(resource) was until recently unknown and not definable. In this global-scale model, each
state, following its own interest, will not be concerned about limiting pollution or
maintaining its ecosystems for the purpose of contributing to a well-functioning Earth
System in a stable and accommodating state, as the good is freely available to be exploited
by all. As there is no legal status for the global good, everyone uses it as res nullius,
considering it will provide an endless stream of benefits to everyone, where their use does
not reduce the potential for use by others (contrary to what is true of the commons).
70
Incidentally, this legal black hole has also been identified by economists in the Stern
Report:
Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and
widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The economic analysis must therefore be
global, deal with long-term horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at
centre stage, and examine the possibility of major, non-marginal change. (Stern
2006:11)
The failure to recognize the existence of the Earth System makes nations unable to
cope with the challenges on a planetary scale. One consequence is that all the benefits
from, or damages to, the Earth System are legally non-existent. Without the existence of
this common good or the identification of what is the good that presents simultaneously
beyond and within all states but is required to be maintained in good condition for the
functioning of the Earth System as a whole, we will not be able to turn ourselves into
stewards of our common home. An Earth System that does not exist is a matricial failure
and theoretical gap, which prevents filling the void that this recently recognized scientific
reality requires.
3.4. Global Free Riders... Get It While You Can
At the heart of this problem are deep theoretical concepts that require some prior
conceptual clarification on the characteristics of property, property rights and underlying
relations. Since human relations expanded on a global scale through global systemic
financial, economic and political interconnections (but ignored the biogeophysical
interconnections that underpin the functioning of the Earth System), it is essential to
realize how some of these principles of law led to the overexploitation and consequent
tragedy of the commons.
The right of private property confers to its owner the power to exclusively use a
resource, even if such use is rarely done absolutely. This means that, even though an
owner has full power over something plena in re potestas, meaning the right to use, enjoy
and abuse a thing, ius utendi, fruendi et abutendi res sua means that he or she is limited
by the rules of society.
71
Rights to common property are held by groups of individuals, excluding access to the
resources for all those outside the group, but considering rights and duties regarding the
use and conservation of the resource.
The open-access regime (res nullius), the concept of ownerless property, is completely
non-exclusive, meaning that the access to goods/resources cannot be denied to any
individual. In these cases, one cannot identify a group of users or owners because the
available benefits flow to all without any, or almost any, duty regarding the use,
preservation or maintenance of the resource.
In economic theory, this inability to exclude any individual’s use of a good led to the
rise of the free rider (Samuelson 1954) issue, in which any individual can benefit from a
good without contributing to its production. An individual, following self-interest, will
not contribute to the costs of the existence and maintenance of a good but will make use
of its existence since it is available to everyone. The individual benefits from the principle
of non-exclusion.
The problem of the tragedy of commons is based on the characteristics of free access
and the unregulated use of a natural resource, which is limited by nature. Climate change
is a tragedy of the commons on a global scale, in which this intrinsically common good,
which was overexploited (a characteristic stable climate of a well-defined state of the
Earth System), is not only difficult to define and to establish boundaries around but also
no human being can be excluded from access to it.
In a situation where either the damage or the benefits are common, without an
organization of collective use through a system of accounting benefits and harms,
everyone will act as a global free rider. Therefore, this is a tragedy not of material
resource exhaustion but of individual occupation of a certain quantity of the
biogeophysical space of the Earth System, carried out through a change that contributes
to destabilising the favourable, stable state of the system. In other words, pollution is a
contribution to a change of a particular state, the healthiness of the Earth System. This
new form of occupation does not correspond to the traditional concept of territory or a
physical appropriation of tangible resources; rather the new reality must be recognized
and conceptualized in order to organize the use of the Earth System. Although a
subversive perspective of the dominant view today, the indivisible “whole” makes the
issue of management of common goods (i.e., the Earth System) the basic fundamental
theoretical question for all discussions on global environmental goods and possible
alternative ways of building a sustainable society.
72
3.5. A Long Looking-For Period
When we look at the pathway traced by science in perspective, the history of
environmental civil society movements and all the high-level negotiations that have been
taking place for many decades, we realize that along this route of searching for solutions,
the vision that the “common” is just the leftovers after appropriation unfortunately
continues to be the starting point from which reality is framed. However, a great effort
by the victims of this structural failure is being made and it is imperative to continue this
standard negotiations track, even accepting that progress in reaching a solution for our
troubled planet has been too slow.
Ten years after Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that challenged the idea
of the supposed capacity of the environment to absorb toxic pollutants such as agriculture
pesticides, the 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment, held in
Stockholm under the leadership of Maurice Strong, is a decisive mark on the
sustainability timeline. While the regional pollution situation in Sweden and the
surrounding Nordic and Central European countries achieved a particular focus, it was
the first major step at the global level to give environmental issues a high priority. The
creation of a sustainable development concept, with the view of integrating different
fields of development, which until that time had been fully separated into a cohesive
vision solving the environmental versus development dilemma, was a clear breakthrough.
Limits to Growth, by the Club of Rome, the best-selling environmental book, was
published in 1972, one year before the oil crisis. The type of analysis, interconnections
and particularly the results sent a shockwave through both developed and developing
countries. The conference led to the establishment of numerous national environmental
protection agencies and, most importantly, the creation of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
During the 1970s, while relevant international agreements such as the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) in 1975 and the
adoption of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution in 1979 came
into effect, the world became acquainted with dramatic global environmental problems,
including the discovery of the role chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) played in damaging the
stratospheric ozone layer by Rowland and Molina in 1974, and catastrophes with a
73
symbolic impact that became calls for world action like the 1978 Amoco Cadiz oil spill
affecting the coast of Brittany in France.
The ’80s broadened the scope of international action in different areas of the
environment. The first World Conservation Strategy was released by the International
Union for Conservation of Nature in 1980 with the significant subtitle: “Living Resource
Conservation for Sustainable Development”. In the document’s foreword, it states that
“human beings (…) must come to terms with the reality of resource limitation and the
carrying capacities of ecosystems, and must take into account the needs of future
generations”. At the end, the “Towards Sustainable Development” section identifies the
main agents of habitat destruction as poverty, population pressure, social inequity and the
terms of trade, and calls for a new international development strategy. While the
principles were not disruptive at that time, they started to frame a vision for the next
decades concerning the complex relationships between human beings and nature.
The concept of the ‘common heritage of mankind’, first mentioned in a 1954
convention related with the protection of cultural property under armed conflicts and in
the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, achieved a greater maturity in 1982 within the United
Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.
In 1987, the publication of Our Common Future, or the so-called Brundtland Report,
gave a comprehensive vision of the problems affecting the planet and the need for global
solutions mostly through the promotion of sustainable development.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992 was a real breakthrough. By mobilizing an incredibly larger number of
stakeholders and high-level representatives from all over the globe before, during, and
after the conference, the Earth Summit or ECO/92 framed the United Nations as the
unquestionable international core for further advances on the implementation of solutions
for a safer planet with a better quality of life. The publication of Agenda 21, the signature
of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the Rio Declaration plus a statement of non-binding Forest Principles probably
turned the event into the most important political mark on the sustainable development
timeline. The parallel non-governmental organization Forum also added a set of
alternative strategies and visions relevant in the framing of a critical view compared to
the less ambitious, slow, and sometimes painful negotiation track along the formal venues
of the United Nations.
74
Throughout the 1990s, two major challenges should be highlighted as crucial steps for
a better understanding of the international framework concerning sustainable
development and the most important global long-term problem for humanity that is
climate change. The beginning of the Conferences of the Parties, after the entry into force
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1995
and the further signature of the Kyoto Protocol by 1997, and all the preparatory work for
the approval of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2000, where world
leaders agreed to a set of time-bound and measurable goals for combating poverty,
hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women,
to be achieved by 2015.
In 2000, after a decade of global cross-cultural dialogue on common goals and shared
values, the Earth Charter was launched. It began as a United Nations initiative but it was
then developed through the involvement of the global civil society, currently with the
endorsement of more than 6,000 organizations. The Earth Charter proposes an ethical
framework for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society for the 21st century.
With 16 principles, the Charter emphasises the need to respect and care for the community
of life along the first four principles, with a statement (principle 2a) that frames a
relationship between humans and the rest of nature: “Accept that with the right to own,
manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to
protect the rights of people.”
During the first decade of the 21st century, another paradigm should also be noted –
the relationship between the intensive work of more than 3,000 experts from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between science and forecasted policy
scenarios, and all the negotiations towards the mitigation and adaptation to climate
change, clearly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded in 2007.
3.6. The Inevitable Global and Multiple Approach
Even admitting that the negotiations pathway will gradually convey better
approximations of a solution, the structural problem still exists, making inevitable a
confrontation where “sovereignty defies reality” (Brunnée 1998). This author, in a paper
about the conflicts between sovereignty and water management and the difficulties of
international law in dealing with shared resources, states that
75
My contention is simple: International Water Law, and States, will not meet the
“challenges of water” until the reality of interdependence is addressed in its full
complexity. This means that international environmental law and international
water law must become integrated to treat water for what it is: a component of the
environment. From this integration, in turn, must emerge a concept of sovereignty
that reflects rather than defies environmental reality.
With the knowledge we have today of the Earth System, a division between the water
component and the other system components is not sound but the statement is still valid
on the need for sovereignty to reflect the environmental reality.
It has become obvious that solutions are necessary. Within the political framework
architecture of existing institutions, we must consider that without a new theoretical
approach able to support a new global paradigm for the management of the commons
within an international landscape characterised by the multiplication of territorial units,
it will be impossible to avoid the effects of a congenital degeneration.
In this context, the preliminary works concerning the ecological footprint, a first
quantifiable and integrated analysis at a global scale, date from the beginning of the ’90s
in the last century. It was more recently, in 2006, that the standardization of this
instrument has enabled it to evaluate and compare activities, countries and regions
worldwide. The ecological footprint enables us to measure the human demand on nature
and evaluate the availability of resources in a constrained world that is becoming more
and more populated.
The footprint represents both the asset side through biocapacity, the planet’s renewable
resources such as biologically productive land areas including our forests, pastures,
cropland and fisheries, and a demand side, with humanity’s consumption of natural
resources.
Upon reaching 2015, the target date of the Millennium Development Goals, the United
Nations took an important broader step, adopting in this same year the 17 sustainable
development goals (SDGs). Considered a consequence of the Rio+20 outcome document
“The Future We Want”, an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on SDGs
opened to all stakeholders, with a view to developing global sustainable development
goals. Ending poverty and hunger go hand in hand with the need to ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns; take urgent action to combat climate change and
its impacts; conserve and promote a sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine
76
resources; protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems;
sustainably manage forests; combat desertification; and halt and reverse land degradation
and biodiversity loss.
Therefore, and with a deep description of the historical application and usefulness of
tracking sustainable development, new guiding principles for assessment system
indicators are suggested throughout this book.
However, the ecological footprint does not account for certain key thresholds within
our biophysical system, the so-called planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015a;
Rockström et al. 2009) that correspond to biogeophysical features of the geological period
in the Holocene. This intangible structure that defines the favourable state of the Earth
System is referred to by the scientific community as the “safe operating space for
humanity”, a space without territory, a true natural res incorporales that is simultaneously
inside and outside all sovereignties, that through the cumulative pressure of humanity
may drive the Earth System to an undesirable state.
This new known reality, this true environmental grundnorm, therefore, should be the
basis for any positive law of general acceptance and reasonableness (Rakhyun &
Bosselmann 2013). The ULO, unidentified legal object, (Melot & Pélisse 2008), could
now have a set of parameters and guidelines that define its stability and existence.
While science is key for evaluating the progress towards a more sustainable planet, the
daily reality embraces long worldwide negotiations, with thousands of negotiators talking
(more than defining) a set of policies on multiple dimensions, including the economy,
society, the environment, and other aspects such as governance.
Departing from the “current system of nation-state based governance is inadequate for
tackling such issues as climate change-induced global warming, pandemic diseases and
other threats to human security and prosperity”2, this book conveys the idea of an Earth
Condominium model, and a new global trusteeship as a paradigm shift necessary to
overcome the difficulties the United Nations has had in the last decades to achieve a better
and planetary outcome concerning different environmental- related matters. Indeed, the
perception of informed citizens worldwide is that the UN has not been able to deliver the
necessary commitments, measures and actions to tackle many of the issues agreed on
within the sustainable development area. However, it is completely unrealistic to rapidly
change the modus operandi of this planetary institution. Even though we are far from the
desired goals, one has to recognize that the negotiations have been progressing with some
relevant achievements. The alternative to bilateral or group country agreements would
77
increase the dictatorship of the will of a few countries, extending the already existing
unnecessary divisions.
In fact, the high complexity of the climate change issue makes science and technical
expertise conveyed through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change almost as
determinant as political will.
The extensive accumulation of negotiation knowledge and consensus, including the
signature of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, with all the accessory mechanisms including the
clean development mechanism, joint implementation, and emission trading between
countries, involved a huge process of approval, tracking, and monitoring that is not
common to other UN conventions.
The pathway where long-frozen concepts, such as the so-called “firewall” that has
been dividing countries into two major groups – developed and the developing, which
have been questioned since greenhouse gas emission targets have had to be applied to a
much larger number of countries in the post-2020 era, is a paradigm of crucial importance
that the negotiations are trying to finally overcome.
The future has to incorporate a combination of strategies, where champion countries
have to lead the way and engage other countries, and where multilateral negotiations have
to unfold and at least partially meet the objectives considered necessary for the
minimization of impacts on humanity and ecosystems. Simultaneously, a new legal
paradigm where the “commons” are the basis of a new configuration of the relationships
between the countries is vital, and should be implemented within a medium or long-term
perspective in a parallel but active process that should start as soon as possible. A
pragmatic perspective would be the one that takes into account the current real politic but
at the same time acknowledges the huge theoretical challenge to law to convey a
favourable state of “healthiness” of the Earth System which it is not restricted to the
global commons but also spans across areas subject to national jurisdiction (Borg 2007).
A complementary strategy that does not stop or close the ongoing negotiation
processes but shifts and integrates them within a new conceptual framework is the
challenge embraced by this book. Only a truly accepted agreement can be both binding
and implemented and, therefore, successful.
78
3.7. The Double Tragedy and Double Challenge
The work of Hardin generated pessimism around the “common”, turning common
property management into a failure. The failure deepens when even those who genuinely
care about future sustainability and the common good come to the conclusion that the
restriction of exploitation of the resource will lead to a comparative economic loss. This
is an altruistic feeling that will lead to a self-elimination of the agents, resulting from a
natural selection process. This logic is valid not only for the exploitation of the resource
but also applies to the benefits that can be realized in maintaining/improving the common
good.
In the context of the Earth System, one can designate the current situation as a dual
tragedy:
On one hand, the classical tragedy of exploitation embodied in the destabilisation
of the relatively stable Holocene state of the Earth System by unregulated resource
exploitation and pollution;
On the other hand, and using the Roman Source/resource analysis, as no country
will enjoy just for itself all the benefits provided from its own sources of the
resource (ecological/geophysical infrastructure) in the state of Earth System
(common resource), there are no advantages in promoting actions to maintain the
Earth System in a stable state. As there is no incentive for individual initiatives to
maintain or improve the sources of common good, in the context of competition
and legal and economic shortcomings in managing a common resource, it is normal
to allow the degradation of the sources to sell raw materials or to obtain other
economic gains, since the vital benefits provided by the sources of the common
resource are worth zero as they are still shared by all on a global scale.
The logic of the tragedy of the commons is doubly valid for the exhaustion of the
resource and for the destruction of the sources of the resource, “the ecological
infrastructure” that can deliver benefits to all societies. The short-term logic will prevail
unless structural measures that have the ability to change these initial conditions and
generate new systemic collaborative effects are implemented. The logic of the tragedy of
the commons undoubtedly depends on a set of assumptions related to the motivation of
79
people operating under rules governing the use of the common and defining the very
nature of the resource.
A pragmatic approach to this dual challenge has to be necessarily innovative. This
implies a structural intervention in the framework basics of the sovereign international
system, which allows the benefits achieved in the state of the Earth System, which
currently economically disappear into a black legal hole, to have economic visibility
through an accounting system and compensation for the “stewardship of the Earth
System”. For this structural change to become possible, it is necessary that the global
benefits made by the “common resource”, which is the Earth System in a favourable state,
are caught in a global legal instrument.
Figure 4. A comparison of the existing and proposed Earth System
management regimes
With the work of Elinor Ostrom and the recognition of the Nobel Prize awarded to her,
the commons are no longer an impossibility. For Ostrom (2010:28) “the crucial factor
will be a combination of structural features that lead many involved to trust each other,
and are willing to take joint action that adds value to their own short-term costs because
both see a long-term benefit for themselves and others, believing that most others will
comply”. This building of trust and reciprocity, as she claims, requires structural features.
We argue that the first structural feature in organizing the collective use of a common
resource is to define the resource to be managed, and to recognize that it has to exist.
NO OBJECTFOR GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE
LEGAL INVISIBILITYOF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
NO INSTITUCIONAL EXISTENCE
NO COORDINATION
LEGAL INVISIBILITY OF INTERCONECTIONSAND EMERGENCEPHENOMENA
INCENTIVE TO EXPLOITTHE EARTH SYSTEM
EARTH SYSTEM AS RES NULLIUS
TRAGEDY OF COMMONS
LEGAL INVISIBILITY OF HUMANITY AND
FUTURE GENERATIONS
VITAL FACTORS
AS EXTERNALITIES
NEGATIVE IMPACTS
AS EXTERNALITIES
EARTH SYSTEM AS
INTANGIBLE COMMON HERITAGEOF HUMANKIND
INSTITUCIONAL COORDINATION OF THE EARTH SYSTEM USE
SYSTEMIC APPROACH
INCENTIVE TO REDUCE EXPLOITATION AND TO RESTORETHE EARTH SYSTEM
VALORIZATIONBENEFITS ON THE EARTH
SYSTEM STATE
ACCOUNTINGNEGATIVE
CONTRIBUTIONS
LEGAL VISIBILITY OF HUMANITY AND FUTURE GENERATIONS THROUGH THE COMMON HERITAGE
ACCOUNTING SYSTEMMANAGEMENT
CAPTURE OF BENEFITS ON
THE COMMON
HERITAGE
WITHOUT LEGAL EXISTENCE WITH LEGAL EXISTENCE
80
Once identified, the natural res incorporales state of the Earth System, although
physically inappropriable can be managed. Hugo Grotius (1916) however defends an
exception: If any part of these things is by nature susceptible of occupation, it may
become the property of the one who occupies it but only in so far as such occupation does
not affect its common use.
Ostrom (2010:36) also acknowledged that “it is obviously much easier to build
solutions for collective action problems related to small-scale resources than for those
related to a global common good.” Despite the magnitude of the challenge, there is no
other feasible alternative. This is the approach that we will explore throughout this book.
81
Chapter 4
A New Object of Law – Attempt for a Legal Construction
Let’s not pretend that things will change if we keep doing the same things. A crisis can be a real blessing to any person, to any nation. For all crises bring progress. Creativity is born from anguish, just like the day is born from the dark night. It’s in crisis that inventiveness is born, as well as discoveries are made and big strategies are created. He who overcomes crisis, overcomes himself, without getting overcome. He who blames his failure on a crisis neglects his own talent and is more interested in problems than in solutions. Incompetence is the true crisis. The greatest inconvenience of people and nations is the laziness with which they attempt to find the solutions to their problems. There’s no challenge without a crisis. Without challenges, life becomes a routine, a slow agony. There’s no merit without crisis. It’s in the crisis where we can show the very best in us. Without a crisis, any wind becomes a tender touch. To speak about a crisis is to promote it. Not to speak about it is to exalt conformism. Let us work hard instead. Let us stop, once and for all, the menacing crisis that represents the tragedy of not being willing to overcome it.
Albert Einstein
4.1. A Theoretical Gap
According to Nietzsche, "There are no facts, only interpretations". This means that
knowledge of facts is no substitute for their comprehension.
The exponential increase in the knowledge about the Earth System does not
necessarily mean we understand it in all its dimensions, particularly in terms of all the
consequences this new reality entails. Still, albeit somewhat unconsciously, the increasing
ability to intervene and change the state of the Earth System as a whole is moving us from
the role of passive spectators towards actors capable of changing the plot itself. We are
now in the driving seat (Rockström 2014), but it seems that despite having access to the
command centre, we don't have a social organization to define who and how to use the
“central computer” (Matos 2016:28) that would allow us to conduct our own behaviour
in respect of Spaceship Earth (Fuller 1969).
If from a technological perspective we are able to overcome and manipulate Spaceship
Earth at all levels, the crew doesn't have the internal organization that allows collective
82
action to handle its operation. We have never been so vulnerable with respect to the level
of social organization.
In nature, where more remains hidden than is revealed, the unexplainable “whole” that
surrounds us has been delineated by sets of rites, myths, beliefs and concepts that
established order amongst ideas and name the unnameable: Mother Nature, Mother
Earth, the Great Machine, goddess Gaia, the law of nature, living space, ecological
space, life-support system. They are all forms for what we today call the Earth System.
Throughout the history of science, properties and behaviours of different components
of the Earth System have been analysed on different physical, material and biological
levels. However, the higher, more intangible and diffuse levels of interconnection and
global systemic integration remained in our mental sphere, hidden as the true terra
incognita. Even if laboratory analyses allow us to interpret the unseen and incorporeal
character of natural phenomena, a problem arises with the attempt to comprehend them
on a global scale, integrated within the true system, the “whole”. For example, carbon
dioxide (CO2) and its role in the biochemical process of photosynthesis are well known,
but its effects at higher concentrations in the atmosphere and the consequences of its
interaction with other elements were perceived only recently. Neither the “global” nor the
“whole” fit in any laboratory or suit the process of delimitation and precision required by
legal norms.
First, human activity operates at the lower level of the Earth System (material,
physical, biological), that is, at the level of exploitation of resources and ecological
infrastructure. It not only disturbs the dynamics and interdependencies at the level of
activity but also at a higher level of the Earth System, provoking chemical changes in the
atmosphere and hydrosphere, initiating a process of manipulation of the pattern of order.
So, for the first time, anthropogenic impacts affected the Earth System as a whole,
regardless of whether they happened at only the lower level of the Earth System. The
unified and interdependent character, and the properties of the global system, began to
unravel through the feedback from the higher levels of integration of the Earth System.
That initiated an interpretation of the laws of the “whole” which could not be understood
from the behaviour of its components only.
In fact, the ‘whole’ is organized from the molecule up to the biosphere, and at each
level of integration, characteristics emerge which cannot be analysed based only on
mechanisms that explain lower levels of integration. This phenomenon, known as
83
emergence, corresponds to the appearance of new characteristics at combined levels
and which do not exist at the level of its constituting elements. (Filipe, Coelho &
Ferreira 2007:125)
The characteristic behaviour of the whole cannot be derived, even in theory, from the
most complete possible knowledge of the behaviour of its components, whether
considered individually or in other combined proportions or organizations.
Emergence can also be seen as a process in which “spontaneous” order is displayed
from within the system. It is when different elements are allowed to combine, that
they form patterns and interactions between them. When they lose their established
rational order, entering into a situation of unstructured chaos, a new structure may
emerge. (Miller & Swinney 2001:22)
The Earth System is a complex one within which there are different levels of
functioning and interaction. The pattern resulting from millennia of slow interactions
between the various components of the Earth System produced a biochemical structure
corresponding to a single period of climate stability: the Holocene. This spontaneous
emergence of an order produced emergent phenomena that contributed equally to the
consolidation of that pattern of a well-buffered stability that works inside an “envelope
of natural variability” (Steffen et al. 2004:336). These reciprocal interactions of
teleconnections, retroactions and feedbacks led to a complex and dialectical system,
which resulted in a favourable condition for the development of human civilizations.
The number of such phenomena is immense, and only by an analysis of the
interconnections on a global scale can we begin to lift the veil of their incredible
complexity. One of the most interesting phenomena, in that by its domino effect it could
be a determining factor in maintaining the current state of the Earth System, is the
transport of dust between the Sahara and Amazon (NASA & Garner 2015). From the
Sahara desert and, with more intensity, the Bodélé Depression in Chad, an ancient lake
rockbed composed of dead microorganisms loaded with phosphorus, around 182 million
tons (the equivalent of 689,290 semi-trucks full) of dust are transported each year by the
wind, travelling 1,600 miles across the Atlantic, though some drops to the surface or is
flushed from the sky by rain.
Near the eastern coast of South America, at longitude 35W, 132 million tons remain
in the air, and 27.7 million tons (enough to fill 104,908 semi-trucks) fall to the surface
84
over the Amazon basin. It fertilises the basin decisively, maintaining that dense green
mass, which, in turn, with its 600 billion trees and an extraordinary sophisticated process,
pumps 20 billion tons of water daily into the atmosphere (larger trees pump about 1000
litres/day of water), and injects 17 billion cubic metres of water containing a high
concentration of organic matter into the ocean (one-fifth of all the fresh water that reaches
the oceans). Amazingly, deserts are crucial to life in the oceans and global climate
regulation. With this dialectic chain of emergences, we realize the interdependent whole
of the entire system. In its higher level of integration, as stated by Hongbin Yu,5 “This is
a small world … we're all connected together”.
Only recently has visualizing this example become possible, allowing us to
comprehend the unimaginable potential chain of interconnections and teleconnections on
which we depend, and that we are influencing by inducing changes in the preconditions
that maintain the status of the system.
The changes in some of the initial conditions in the pattern of stability in the system
corresponding with the Holocene period, for example the increase in CO2 concentrations
(and consequent changes in heat accumulation, global thermodynamics and feedbacks
produced by climate change), allowed us to “open the book” on the dynamics and
interdependencies that occur at the higher level of the Earth System.
The Great Acceleration3 by the human enterprise started in the middle of the twentieth
century with an increase in the exploitation of resources and ecological infrastructures –
“The speeding up of just about everything after the Second World War … sometimes
called the Great Acceleration… human population has tripled, but the global economy
and material consumption have grown many times faster” (Hibbard et al. 2006:342). It
created such fundamental changes in the state and functioning of the Earth System that it
is designated as the end date for the Holocene period and the start date for the
Anthropocene.
The tsunami caused by the changes in the dynamic natural pattern is overwhelming
the social and economic systems to such an extent that it calls for a questioning and re-
evaluation of many of the fundamental ideas upon which the Great Acceleration was built.
Although urgent, we have not yet been able to go the required distance from which to
5 Hongbin Yu, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Maryland who works at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is lead author of the study about dust transport, with data collected by a lidar instrument on NASA's Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation, or CALIPSO, satellite from 2007 through 2013.
85
perform a critical analysis of these facts, their scientific interpretation, and their
implications for international relations and the social, political and economic realms.
Although restricted to an academic level, the discussion on the de-territorialised and
globalised reality in which we now live has created a situation in which everything is
being questioned. Garcia (2010:15), in her analysis about the fragmentation of the state
sovereignty, identified many authors who address this issue:
There are authors who question whether we need to abandon the concept of the
State (Heiko Faber), those that claim that the Modern State has ceased to exist
(Wolfgang Reinhold), those who ask “why do we still talk of the State?” (Peter
Saladin), or those who claim that there is an incompatibility between globalisation
and sovereign States (Thomas Vesting). There are even those who assert that the
national State no longer guarantees peace, freedom, security, protection of human
rights and the environment (Julianne Kokott).
Ruggie (1993:139) argues that scholars of international relations are not very good ...
at studying the possibility of fundamental discontinuity in the international system; that
is, at addressing the question of whether the modern system of States may be yielding in
some instances to post-modern forms of congaing political space. We lack even an
adequate vocabulary; and what we cannot describe, we cannot explain.
In a fully globalised world, connected through biophysical interactions between people
and nations at social and economic levels, several fundamental premises of the
Westphalian system of sovereign states have changed. The change is so deep that even
words, until today unquestionable in the description of these situations, such as the word
“international”, have become obsolete in the attempt to capture the totality of social
relations that cross the boundaries of states.
The growing importance of non-State actors involved in social interactions beyond
State boundaries, regional and global structures, and the improvement in the efficiency
of international norms, resulted in terms such as “transnationalism” and “globalism”.
These new terms are responses to the inadequacy of the term 'international' to depict
observed empirical phenomena, making the 'international' an unsatisfactory analytical (or
indeed epistemological) category to describe global society. Thus understood, the
'international' might be seen as a description of social structures that have lost much of
their relevance in the wake of increasing de-nationalisation through trans-nationalisation
or globalisation. (Albert 2007:48)
86
Disturbances we create in the pattern of Holocene stability, combined with the new
technologies available, make visible the higher level of integration of the Earth System.
The awareness of this new reality and the knowledge of the consequences created the new
globalised context, where everything changes. It is even normal to resort to “problem
words” (Morin 2007) and not “solution words”, as in the case of the word “complexity”.
In this sense, several authors resort to “complex sovereignty” (Magalhães 2007:88; Pauly
& Grande 2007:3) to define what otherwise could not be named in the confrontation
between evolution of social-ecological reality and the concept of sovereignty.
Edgar Morin (1990:8) explains in his “complex thought” that “complexity cannot be
reduced to a single master word, law or simple idea. In other words, the complex cannot
be reduced to a law or idea of complexity. It cannot be something easy to define, thereby
taking the place of simplicity”. In other words, calling complexity “complex” does not
solve the problem with which we are confronted.
Even on the short human temporal scale, the Great Acceleration was short and recent.
Its feedbacks carry with them impertinent and subversive questions that pressure the
existing social system and its assumptions. Answering them implies a radical change in
theoretical perspectives.
The facts exist: the Earth System functions as an interdependent “global whole” in the
way it has always functioned in its different states throughout its history – what does not
yet exist is a theory able to first represent the world beyond the nation-state and then
allocate a place to what is the higher level of integration of the Earth System. Since there
is no interpretation capable of representing this global reality within our system of social
organization, we continue to act as if that reality does not exist.
Nietzsche, therefore, is correct in his statement, the point here being that the legitimacy
of interpretation lies in its capacity to explain reality; in other words, its ability to reflect
and understand the actual situation in the world. The legitimacy of a discourse resides in
the explanatory power of reality, so that legitimacy erodes to the extent that its inadequacy
to reflect the real situation in the world increases. In every area where the discourse of
sovereignty has lost its ability to accurately portray the facts, it is precisely at the gap
between theorization of reality and the actual reality of the ecological dynamic of the
biosphere that this loss of legitimacy becomes clear (Camilleri and Falk 1992).
Without a theory able to interpret the facts raised by the global and interdependent
reality of the Earth System, we will continue to live an illusion that tries to fit new facts
into an old interpretation.
87
In this context, it is no surprise that the majority of reactions to environmental
disruption caused by the Great Acceleration are limited to interventions in the periphery
of the social system. We classified this “looking-for period” as the first generation of
environmental law, with modest intervention in human relationships, that is, we relied on
long lists of prohibitions without intervening in the primary drivers of the system or
properly understanding the huge theoretical challenge.
Even without the scientific information needed to unravel some of the contours of the
new circumstances that impose themselves on law, Amaral (1994:17) understood the
structural and systemic nature of the challenge being faced.
Environmental law is a primary branch of law, born not to regulate the relations
amongst humans but to try to insert discipline in the relationship between humans
and nature. ... before the eyes of humanity, a new era has been unravelling, we may
actually even be entering into a new civilization. ... It is why this new civilization
has begun to generate its Law – a new type of Law. Environmental Law is not just
another specialised and technical branch, but requires a whole new philosophy that
shapes the way we look at Law.
4.2. The Legal Nebula
Defining the outlines of reality upon which to build environmental law is conditioned
by the possibility of knowing what is to be protected; in other words, by the ability to
define and delimit the quid to be put under the scope (protection) of the law.
The transmutation of the “environment” from a slightly relevant social interest into an
authentic legal good, with a value per se, added a profound new meaning: The
“environment” shall be protected as a value by itself, and not as it was previously – that
is, merely the causal path of damage.
Previously, for law, damage to the environment only existed when it caused damage
to people or goods. With the new formulation, damage is perceived as disturbance of an
autonomous and unitary legal interest it allows, immediately, to draw – based on
axiological ordering of the subject of injury – the distinction between damage to the
environment as a legal good [ecological damage] and the damage caused to people and
88
property by environmental disturbances (environmental damage, Umweltschäden,
Milieuschäden). (Cunhal 2002:40)
The autonomy of the environment as a legal good, with a value per se, is one of the
major conceptual achievements made along the path of legal protection for the
environment. Despite several national and international legal systems adopting this
recognition, during this looking-for period, there was no scientific knowledge available
that would enable us to understand the facts, the quid, with which jurists were faced. This
lack of knowledge and the impossibility of defining the environmental good within
existing paradigms made these new questions impertinent. “The subversive impulse of
environmental law” was what Canotilho (2009:2) called this structural incompatibility.
In our view, the subversion of law by the environment is based on three fundamental scale
preconditions:
• The global scale of the good intended to be captured under the scope of law,
and the impossibility of establishing any kind of material or abstract legal
division of the "environmental good” (geographic scale);
• The cumulative and intergenerational character of the damages on and benefits
caused by this “environmental good” (time scale);
• The restrictive and limiting approach of environmental law towards an
economic system conceived on unlimited growth on a planet with limited
resources (economic/ecological scale).
On the way to representing the environment as a legal good, states found they needed
to capture and create a narrative able to interpret something that had always had a local
and a global dimension, diffuse and indeterminate. Some states searched the “whole”
within their own boundaries and eventually arrived at the understanding of the unitary
character of the environment. Departing from the principle of territoriality of norms and
political power, it appears that this unitary character referred to a national context, even
though there was already an empirical perception that this unit referred in fact to the larger
whole, the global. But due to a lack of legal representation of the true scale of the legal
good in question, the “environment” had to adapt itself to political borders.
The attempt to define the global on a local scale quickly became ineffective. In the
National Environmental Performance Report on Planetary Boundaries of the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (Nykvist, Persson, Moberg, Persson, Cornell, &
89
Rockström 2013:3), it is stated that “Sweden is exposed to environmental impacts from
other countries which affect Sweden’s ability to achieve these environmental quality
objectives. At the same time, Swedish consumption and production have an impact on
environmental performance in other countries”. International organizations such as the
EU do recognize this global dependency: “Even though we have never used our natural
resources with so much efficiency as we do at present, we are still degrading our essential
resources ... in Europe as well as in the rest of the world, and in the environmental field,
borders do not exist” (SOER 2015).
These structural genetic defects gave rise to a process of relativism and de-
legitimization of the legal good. The result was a dysfunctional congenital degeneration:
a) the legal weight of “ecological footprints turned out to be unsupportable by
the jus utendi, fruendi et abutendi of property and sovereignty (Canotilho
2009:2);
b) the cumulative character and global spread of harm over the course of various
generations, and protection of rights without subjects (namely future
generations);
c) the causal link between the acts that harm the systemic character of the
environmental damage and affect all the Earth System, whose effects only
reveal themselves much later;
d) the global dispersion of benefits of ecosystem services;
e) the idea of polygonal relations extended to a global scale, within a context of
plural responsibility;
f) the tipping points resulting from the accumulation of damage caused over the
course of various generations;
g) interconnections between different territorial components divided by abstract
political frontiers;
h) the imposition of limits and environmental obligations as generators of
unequal competing conditions on a global scale; and
90
i) the legitimacy problem of instituting legal proceedings, civil society or class
actions.
All things considered, there was more than enough reason to reject this first-generation
branch of environmental law. Incompatibility with the assumptions of the system gave
rise to a phenomenon which is referred to in specialised literature as Vollzug Defizit, the
implementation deficit (Hucke & Wollmann 1998), or enforcement deficit. It came to
characterise environmental law due to a) an exponential proliferation of norms and
standards; b) the manipulated application with intent to restrict its scope; c) the systemic
deferral while awaiting regulation; and d) outright failure to apply norms. Prieur
(187:320) considered it a “diffuse form of deregulation” while Charbonneau (1998)
speaks of a de-legitimization of environmental law and Carbonnier raises the hypothesis
of No-Law.
But as paradoxical as it may seem, even when rejected, this quid referent to a
healthiness environment did in fact invoke a qualitative change in the fundamental goals
of states. That is so because it did not cease to represent a value superior to those the law
aims to protect, both from an individual or collective point of view.
This deep material foundation, as a vital dimension of life and the human species, is
not just a constitutionally guaranteed right in about 125 constitutions (Bosselmann
2016:72); it is even being considered a hypothesis that would lead to the emergence of a
new type of state, a post-social state (Silva 1989), or a successor to the welfare state, an
environmental law state (Rangel 1994).
The entry of the environment into the core fundamental objectives and tasks of the
states as a collective legal good and/or fundamental right of each individual citizen also
raised procedural questions of legitimacy in court or when participating in administrative
procedures.
Various states (mainly Portuguese-speaking countries), challenged by a reality not
reflected in their spatial dimension, sought to develop a theory through “problem words”
that were better able to portray the diluted and diffuse reality that conditioned them. The
“theory of diffuse interests” at the basis of class action (in Portuguese Ação Popular)
teaches us that when legal goods are involved, such as the environment, consumption or
quality of life, "they belong to all of us and can never be allocated exclusively to any
subject. It means that the diffuse interests include at the same time a collective and
individual dimension, neither being merely collective, nor merely individual" (Sousa
91
1998). Cappelletti (1975) expresses the other side of the coin: they belong "to everyone
and no one".
But the all-encompassing scale of diffuse interests, once again, cannot be limited to a
single community belonging to a particular state but only to humanity as a collective in
the trans-spatial dimension, such as “the entire human race, being the combination of all
human beings that inhabit the planet” (Santos 200:68), and in a trans-temporal dimension,
in the sense of the collective ad infinitum, including all human beings that will succeed
the current living generation at a given time (Malhotra 1998:41). Each generation thus
becomes “a link in an endless chain of generations that collectively forms a community,
a human family” (Agius 1998:7). This has led to a doctrine that defends the emergence
of a new subject in international law: humanity; a true “revolution in social and legal
thought” (Agius 1998:7).
The combination of the “whole” and “everyone” may be the biggest challenge that the
law will face in this century. The uncertainty exists not only around the good intended to
come under the law’s protection but also around the identification of the holders of this
diffuse good, therefore the nebula broadens to the international dimension.
The UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 Protection of Global Climate for Present
and Future Generations of Mankind of 6 December, 1988, with a combination of lack of
political will and an absence of suitable concepts to define a fundamental resource, state
that "climate change on Earth and its adverse effects are a common concern of mankind".
This solution has roots in concepts such as common interest, global commons,
intergenerational equity, responsibility or rights, common ecological heritage of
humankind, life-support system and “the awareness that the problems of ocean space are
closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole” (UNCLOS 1982)6. They all
share the difficulty of defining their form in a precise manner.
So we arrive at a point where all contradictions and paradoxes of the legal nebula are
possible, especially when “problem words” blend into “concern words” through
indeterminate, merely descriptive, neutral and open concepts. It can easily lead to the
“whole” being synonymous for nothing and nobody. “International law itself was (and to
a certain extent remains) ill-equipped to address state activities affecting negatively an
intangible natural resource which spans across and beyond the national territories of
states” (Borg 2009:1).
92
4.3. The “Whole” Problem
The reality of the “whole” disappears in the political map of state boundaries.
However, if the “whole” exists in a higher level of functioning and integration of the
Earth System, is it or is it not possible to represent this new reality beyond the states?
Starting from the first two elements that gave rise to structural incompatibility,
geographic scale and time scale, which carried with them the subversion introduced into
the law by the "environment", and recent developments in our knowledge on the
functioning of the Earth System, we will work on a possible evolution of these still
embryonic and inefficient formulations of legal concerns from an actual vague and
indeterminate formula into an operational legal instrument, giving shape to rights and
duties.
Expressions such as “life-sustaining systems of the biosphere” (United Nations 1992),
“conservation of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind” (United Nations
1988), or that “the problems of the ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be
considered as a whole” (UNCLOS 1982) presented in different texts of international law
are themselves attempts to approach the biogeophysical foundations at the basis of the
emergence of life and the conditions that allowed the development of human civilization.
It is clear that these merely descriptive concepts are not rooted in a set of criteria that
offer the possibility of measurement or delimitation that would allow us to define a legal
object; that is, to define the concept and its amplitude, distinguishing it for all other legal
goods but also matching the unitary global reality of the “environment”.
The word system in the term life-sustaining systems of the biosphere points back to the
empirical idea of a combination of various interrelated and interacting components, out
of which emerges a whole that is more than the sum of its components. However, this
reference to general concepts, without proceeding to a description of criteria that could
be used to delimit a physical space in which the system operates or the mention of an
indicator that provides us with information on the system state, once again reveals how
unspecified concepts rule the environmental nebula.
The phrase conservation of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind,
although referring to the initial proposal of the Maltese initiative and is included as such
in the text of this resolution of the UN General Assembly, does not refer to a specific and
93
particular good but rather to a set of interconnected goods that shape a system with a
specific functionality inherited from Mother Nature. This heritage is the integration of the
geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere that forms a single global
system as the result of an evolutionary process of interaction.
Even the expression whole carries with it a systemic idea. It means that, as in the
preamble of UNCLOS (1982)7 where the necessity to manage “ocean space” is
recognized, it refers not to the geographical and political space made up by the sum of
the different areas of state jurisdiction and high seas but rather to the necessity to elaborate
on problems related to the use of the oceans as a whole, taking into account the ocean
environment as an integrated fluid ecological system. Though still empirical in nature,
the perception exists that all these concepts direct us towards the notion of a system. The
question of how we can build a legal concept relating to a system not tied to any territorial
delimitation, since in environmental matters the system is global, remains unanswered.
What are these life-sustaining systems of the biosphere, the biosphere being an object
that is not confined to any sovereignty, existing both in and outside all sovereignties? We
can all perceive it intuitively but we cannot touch or appropriate it, even though it is
profoundly related to and dependent on the physical nature placed under the jurisdiction
of the different states of the planet. What is ocean space as a whole, which apparently
transcends every sea, ocean or jurisdiction but does not materialize in a geographical
dimension? What is this natural heritage that belongs to the time continuum of all
successive generations, carrying with it interests shared with the unborn, and which
should not be mixed with the territorial space that belongs to the people amongst whom
they will be born?
The first jump into the unknown will focus on both the dysfunctional relationship
between the reductionist physicist or biological approach of law towards nature and the
intangible geophysical realities that determine the state and functioning of the Earth
System.
It seems to us that the key to establishing order in our interpretation, as we construct
legal abstractions in regard to nature, lies in the recognition of different analytical levels.
As Soromenho-Marques (2006:57) observes in relation to the immaterial heritage, “it also
matters here to avoid reductionism of a physicist or biological nature, we should today
avoid the repetition of an old debate that ran through the 17th and 18th centuries on the
94
nature of matter, as the Newtonian theory of the Universe was presented. During this
period, the Cartesians rejected the theory of gravitational force as they considered it
"miraculous". For them, the category of material force should always be characterised by
direct transmission through physical contact. We cannot make the same mistake
concerning the heritage. In fact there exist other types of heritage beyond those that can
be seen or touched.”
In this search for the environmental legal good, the law has already had to face realities
that go beyond our sensory capacity and had the necessity to broaden to the notion of
system and ecosystem functions, which have already been recognized in some legal
orders, particularly the European Union (Comissão Europeia, 2000). Although these
evolutions are attempts to theorize reality and produce a more adequate representation of
the systemic character of environmental goods, we do not yet have a concept able to
represent the true scale of these biogeophysical interconnections that extended human
relations on a global scale.
We find ourselves in a stalemate. On one hand, if we advance with the search for this
environmental legal good within the geographical limits of states, we obtain an ecological
nonsense,5 inevitably amputated and dysfunctional. On the other hand, if we approach the
Earth System on its true scale of biogeophysical relationships, we will collide with the
geographic delimitation of sovereignties and the lack of the political and legal existence
of the entire Earth System, and therefore arrive at a completely dysfunctional relationship
between the Earth System and the social system.
The awareness of the different internal dynamic levels of the Earth System and its
dependence on the core drivers at the origin of a structural pattern that produced a unique
period of climatic stability in the history of the planet (the Holocene) could determine the
name and define what kind of environmental legal good we are looking for. It is so that
the possibility to accurately represent facts and reconstitute, legitimize and thereby make
sovereignty evolve, as has happened along the course of history, will only become viable
if we cease to hide the reality of these intangible relations.
The intangible heritage contributes to the understanding of the critical crossroads
of contemporary humanity, shedding light on the human condition, and on some of
the possible paths for their redemption. (Soromenho-Marques 2006:62)
95
4.4. The Software/Hardware Relation
Defining and delimiting the quid to be placed under the scope of law will require the
construction of legal abstractions in accordance with the known reality of nature, and
finding solutions that harmonise representations of nature with those of the social system.
The fact that the planet, as opposed to many others, is not just a sphere of rocks and
an atmosphere offers us a solid point of departure for our reflection. Our planet, orbiting
around the sun at a distance of 149 million kilometres in an orbit called the habitable
zone,6 created the necessary physical conditions for an active water cycle to exist, which
includes the three – solid, liquid and gaseous – phases. This water cycle enabled the
development of an incredibly complex biosphere, forming patterns of organization and
global integration through combined internal interaction. Together these patterns form a
meta-system.
The need to understand this global reality led to an evolution in life sciences, which
integrated different areas of scientific knowledge, creating a contrast with the reductionist
tendencies of the Cartesian perspective. This process eventually resulted in the concept
of the Earth System that came to mean “the suite of interacting physical, chemical, and
biological global-scale cycles (often called biogeochemical cycles) and energy fluxes
which provide the conditions necessary for life on the planet” (Oldfield & Steffen
2004:7).
Being in dialectical interaction with the biotic and abiotic infrastructures, these
processes function as a set of intangible operational instructions with properties that
determine the ways in which the Earth System self-organizes and regulates itself, and can
be designated as the “programme” of the Earth System. In a brilliant theoretical analogy,
Soromenho-Marques (2006:59) clarifies the relationship between tangible and intangible
heritage: "I believe that in an ultramodern analogy, we can read this relationship in the
same way that software and hardware relate to each other." This analogy could in fact be
equally valid on revealing the relation between tangible infrastructure (res corporals) of
the planet and the intangible system (res incorporales) of physical laws, thermodynamics
or biochemistry, forming in their combination an authentic piece of software containing
the operational instructions that determine the functioning state of the Earth System.
96
Figure 5. The hardware/software relation and the Earth System/planet relation
The Earth System is a very real and constant presence in our lives. However, since we
cannot see or touch it, it was thought to be infinitely abstract, but, recently, technological
evolution easily made it visual through images captured from space. It thus became an
open book that has since dazzled us with its high degree of interaction.
The feedback we are getting on the state of the system and current technological
developments are allowing us to read this “book of instructions” across different scientific
areas. “For the first time in history, humans have knowledge at their disposal to exert a
power over nature, over life and death, allowing us to gain control over what would
previously escape our reach, being considered a certain fatality or causal chain of events”
(Silva 2002:10).
At the same time, this potential opened up a new field of opportunities and dangers. In
the case of genetic information, the law was called upon to intervene, imposing rules and
limits to human-making (bio-law), and information of the human genome was considered
the heritage of mankind, even though in symbolic meaning only (UNESCO 1997).
The previous example shows that the recognition of objects of intangible or immaterial
character is not new to legal sciences. Other examples are cultural heritage, recognized
97
through UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003), the intangible value
of companies in commercial law and the intellectual property rights and authorship
through statements that establish the independence between author’s rights and the
material support of a work. Despite problems of definition and delimitation, the
importance of the values intended to be protected have always justified the search for new
solutions.
According to Olfield and Steffen (2004:7), the Earth System consists of an interactive
atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere that form together a complete
and unified system with characteristics defined as follows.
It deals with a materially closed system that has a primary external energy source,
the sun.
• The major dynamic components of the Earth System are a suite of interlinked
physical, chemical and biological processes that cycle (transport and
transform) materials and energy in complex dynamic ways within the System.
The forcings and feedbacks within the System are at least as important to the
functioning of the System as are the external drivers.
• Biological/ecological processes are an integral part of the functioning of the Earth
System, and not just the recipients of changes in the dynamics of a chemical
system. Living organisms are active participants, not simply passive respondents.
Human beings, their societies and their activities are an integral component of the
Earth System, and are not outside forces perturbing an otherwise natural system.
There are many modes of natural variability and instabilities within the System as
well as anthropologically driven changes. By definition, both types of variability
are part of the dynamics of the Earth System. They are often impossible to
separate completely and they interact in complex and sometimes mutually
reinforcing ways.
• Time scales considered in Earth System science vary according to the questions
being asked. Many global environmental change issues consider time scales of
decades to a century or two. However, a basic understanding of Earth System
dynamics demands consideration of much longer time scales in order to capture
longer-term variability of the System, to understand the fundamental dynamics
of the System, and to place into context the current suite of rapid global-scale
98
changes occurring within the System. Thus environmental and prognostic
modelling approaches are both central to Earth System science.
Now, as we examine this definition of the Earth System and the enumeration of its
characteristics from the perspective of law, it seems that many of the problems associated
the definition of legal environmental objects at state level have their origin within these
characteristics. The same difficulties are faced by international law. These difficulties
converge in the first two preconditions (geographic scale and time scale) that motivate
the subversive character of environmental law, as follows:
• At the state level, the environment was understood as "an autonomous and unitary
legal good". As such, it became a synonym for diffuse and indefinable, thus
rendering the protection of this good dysfunctional;
• At the international level, the compartmentalised approach that considered and
analysed only the distinct components of the Earth System concealed phenomena
of interaction and emergence.
The dysfunction between the current knowledge of the Earth System and the law finds
support in the post-2015 Development Agenda of the United Nations, and within the
formulation of the sustainable development goals (SDG). This UN strategy puts an
emphasis on “the need for a coherent global framework to integrate existing laws that
would cover these international areas” (UN, 2013). While international treaties and
conventions relative to global common goods do exist, the United Nations recognizes that
“the frameworks are fractured, and not comprehensive enough to include modern
conservation principles or assessments” (Olfield & Steffen 2004:7).
4.5. A Space Without Territory
The concept or the most adequate international law term (Shelton 2009) to describe
the characteristics outlined by Olfield and Steffen from a legal perspective is the common
concern of humankind (CCH), which emerged with regard to the climate in the UNGA
43/53 (1988) resolution (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm). While
this concept is still just a phrase or term that should be understood in a broad sense,
99
therefore being inapt to serve as operational or normative support for an international
environment regime, Dina Shelton knew to appreciate the notable innovation of this term
and the profound implications of its premises. According to Shelton (2009), the concept
introduces two fundamental innovations into international law: the first relates to the fact
that this concept does not make any reference to states; the second being the absence of
any reference to a geographically delimited area, even though it is associated with other
concepts such as the global commons areas – the high seas, Antarctica, the seabed and
outer space – where the common heritage of mankind is applied. “Common concerns are
different because they are not spatial, belonging to a specific area, but can occur within
or outside sovereign territory” (Shelton 2009).
In the opening speech of the second meeting of the Group of Legal Experts to examine
the concept of the common concern of mankind in relation to global environmental issues
in Geneva 1991, Mostafa K. Tolba, the director of UNEP at that time, asserted:
It is very important that the concept of common concern of mankind is further
elaborated to make its contents and scope understandable and clear; it is also
important to make sure how this concept can be interpreted in the terms of rights
and obligations of States in the process of its implementation. It is understandable
that, since it is a new concept in international law and international relations, it
will develop further in the near future and its interpretation given today, will evolve.
With these statements, the central idea of this concept – that its birth is only its own
evolution– is retained. It was born as a quasi-concept, as a future project, a proclamation
of the need to find an idea for an unsolved problem. In other words, since its appearance,
the common concern is valuable for the novelty it was, and for what it might still be and
represent. It is certain about 30 years on that the UN resolution on the common concern
was the way round a possible legal status for the unique nature of climate which is not
restricted to the global commons but spans also across areas subject to national
jurisdiction (Borg 2007). The climate continues to be orphaned not of a definition but of
a legal framework for its existence. In the report of this meeting (UNEP Secretariat,
1991), it was said:
During the general discussion on the concept of common concern of mankind, the
experts reiterated that the concept still has no legal consequences in terms of rights
and duties. It was stressed that the concept should not infringe the sovereign right
100
of States and, in this context, a point was raised whether it is desirable to narrow
down the scope of the concept and its application and confine it to global
environmental issues which may cause significant adverse effects upon the
environment. It was re-emphasized that the common concern concept was not meant
to substitute the concept of common heritage. There was a general understanding
that at the current stage the common concern of mankind may serve as guiding
principle rather than legal rule.
He identified the following aspects of the concept of common concern of mankind
that require further consideration and elaboration by legal experts:
- Possible implications of the concept for specific obligations in the relevant
international treaties;
- Implication for the human right to a healthy environment;
-Implication with respect to the issues of equitable burden sharing and fair
compensation.
Although it is made clear here that the CCH (common concern of humankind) was not
intended to replace the CHM, the need for this statement and its reinforcement justifies
and substantiates the deep connection between the two concepts and their common origin.
By listing the issues that need further consideration, we consider that there is a common
denominator among the original objectives of the CHM and the future project
implementation of CCH.
Both concepts are the result of the same initial boost of looking for an international
management regime with the goal of long-term environmental protection through new
structures of politics and governance beyond states, without infringing the sovereign
rights of states. For all purposes, the CCH is an embryonic form of the non-territorial
dimension of the CHM that never came into being, although that was the motivation and
source of the initial boost. In this sense, the CCH represents a latent new legal theory, a
united and interdependent global reality seeking its roots in the ancient moral or ethical
concepts that unify humanity in the nature of the planet it inhabits.
But, unlike the CHM, which still had some “specific areas of the Earth”, remnants of
the geographical divisions, to anchor its existence, the global nature and res incorporales
character of the CCH led to a permanently postponed future. This lack of definition and
101
evolution sine die is matched only by the initial project of Arvid Pardo, which suggests
that the CHM concept is useful in “organizing new forms international cooperation in
matters that are not directly related to specific areas of the Earth (…) [including] climate
and the environment” (Pardo 1989,9–10).7
The resolution UNGA 43/53 (1988), as Borg (2007) recognizes, “identifies the legal
status of an ‘intangible’ common resource (climate) that spans the global commons”. It
is with the absence of a theory capable of representing the intangibility of nature and
recognizing legally a good that is both inside and outside of all states that we can
summarize our inability to accurately portray the reality around us.
Therefore, expounding on the statements of the experts, the CCH is not really a
substitute of CHM that was compressed and mutilated to fit the territoriality of the borders
of states but rather an attempt to fulfil the original objectives of the CHM itself.
Still, the comments made by Shelton about this quasi-concept may yet prove extremely
useful in the search of a legal environmental good when the absence of spatial character
turns into a living space, as paradoxical as that may seem. “The environment is not an
abstraction but represents a living space, the quality of life and the very health of human
beings, including generations unborn” (Shelton 2009:2). This statement is in tune with
space as a concept in the global context as considered by theorists on international
relations: “Although globalisation theorists differ on whether globalisation marks a
distinct rupture in modernity, they do agree that the separation of space from place is a
basic characteristic of modernity that continues but accentuated form under globalising
processes” (Coleman 2007:95).
4.6. A Safe Space Without Territory
One of the dimensions of complex sovereignty is its openness towards finding new
concepts able to represent new loci in a transnational or global space. Thereby it presents
an alternative to the exclusive perspective of space as a territory, distinguishing between
space with its worldwide operation and place. For Giddens (1990:18),
The advent of modernity increasingly tears space away from place by fostering
relations between ‘absent’ others, locationally distant from any given situation of
face-to-face interaction… What structures the locale is not simply that what is
102
present on the scene; the ‘visible form’ of the local conceals the distant relations
which determine its nature.
And for Dirlik (2001:18), “Space in this sense refers to products”.
This interesting development, where the spatial geographic representation is absorbed
by the “functional” dimension of life, offers a functional space that is in accordance with
Shelton's living space as a space system with the function of supporting life. On the other
hand, the primarily spatial representation of the figure of sovereignty is relaxed,
particularly when newly emerging forms of political authority are read to entail not only
a spatial but also a functional reconfiguration. Such emerging forms are also read as the
increasing importance of functional over spatial understandings of political authority.
(Albert 2007:53)
The non-territorial and intangible character of the climate and the function of
maintaining a stable climate meet this vision of a functional space. This new context is
still going through a process of assimilation and conceptual adaptation. We should
emphasise that the living space referred to by Shelton (2009) is not just the climate system
but the whole life-support system, of which the climate system is just one part.
To clarify these concepts and introduce some order into our interpretation, we recur
once again to Olfield and Steffen (2004:7).
The term climate system is also used in connection with global change, and is
encompassed within the Earth System. Climate usually refers to the aggregation of all
components of weather – precipitation, temperature, cloudiness, for example – averaged
over a long period of time, usually decades, centuries, or longer. The processes which
contribute to climate comprise the climate system, and they are closely connected to
biogeochemical cycles. However, there are some important differences between climate
change and global change:
• Many important features of biogeochemical cycles can have significant
impacts on Earth System functioning without any direct change in the
climate system. Examples include the direct effects of changing
atmospheric CO2 concentration on carbonate chemistry and hence on
calcification rates in the ocean and also the sharp depletion of stratospheric
ozone from the injection of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere.
103
• Many interactions between biology and chemistry can have profound
impacts on ecological systems, and hence feedbacks to Earth System
functioning, without any change in the climate system. Examples include
the impact of nitrogen deposition on the biological diversity of terrestrial
ecosystems and the effect of non-climate driven changes in terrestrial and
marine biosphere emission of trace gases and hence to the chemistry of the
atmosphere.
• Human societies and their activities are usually not considered to be a direct
part of the climate system, although their activities certainly impact on
important processes in the climate system (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions).
The scale of the living space underlying the CCH would have to be the whole Earth
System itself. This means, apart from the various spaces such as climate, biodiversity and
oceans, we need an integrated and integrating approach. Considering that the UN
recognizes the lack of a system approach to environmental problems, and that the common
concern is the only term in international law capable of drawing a systemic reality that
exists both in and outside of sovereignties, we need to evolve towards a concept that is
able to define the living space. Although there has already been a consensus over the
existence of a certain ecological global living space, there was no information available
to define and delimit it.
With the exponential development of Earth System sciences in the last 25 years, and
the evolution of Earth observations from space, much of what was concealed from our
senses has turned into a reality that we can observe in real time as external spectators. By
combining all the information of the spatial “big picture” with the information collected
from the lower level of the system, for example, through climate palaeontology, it has
become possible to reconstruct a history of the atmosphere and the whole Earth System.
Knowing the historical behavior of the Earth System is crucial to understanding the value
of the Holocene to humankind, it could have a central role in the definition of the new
legal object that lacks protection.
Over the long course of history of our planet, many different chemical compositions
of the atmosphere and the oceans have given origin to different levels of heat
accumulation, energetic equilibrium and states of the Earth System. Knowing the history
of chemical structures and the different resulting combinations of element interaction
104
allowed us to understand the true unique conditions that characterised the period of
climatic stability in the last 11,700 years called the Holocene.
As we have seen in previous chapters, chemical alterations and the destruction of
ecological infrastructures as a result from the Great Acceleration8 are pushing the Earth
out of the stable domain of the Holocene – the only state of the Earth System that we
know for certain is capable of supporting advanced human civilizations – and threatening
to undermine our prosperity. The scientific community has attempted to respond to the
challenge of understanding and measuring this living space by developing the concept of
planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015; Rockström et al. 2009). These boundaries are
based on the intrinsic “hard-wired” properties of the Earth System itself. They define a
combination of indicators that describe the state of the Earth System.
With access to the information in the "software”, we have gained the ability to define
and measure our living space. The paradoxical system of problem words that defined
concerns as legal concepts now have a table where the vital factors are properly listed,
with every factor assigned to a safe zone, with a minimum and maximum that we must
not transgress. And this is being done on a scale upon which we all truly depend – the
global scale. So, the living space, an intangible and non-territorial space of the CCH, will
coincide with this well-defined state of the Holocene, denominated by the scientific
community as the safe operating space of humankind.
In conceptual terms, this living space operated by the safe operating space of
humankind is consistent with the separation performed by international relations theorists
between space and place.
If we are able to distinguish the planet, with its 510 million square kilometers, from
the Earth System and its different possible states, we can start to imagine alternative
concepts of global coordination, without affecting the constituent elements of
sovereignty. In fact, within a context of systemic dependency of all sovereignties upon
the same living space, the separation of this functional and intangible space of life from
the physical space of the planet and its sovereignties may even be the theoretical
foundation for the development of solutions.
This new conception of a safe operating space for humankind should in turn lead to a
new juridical conception of the Earth System that corresponds better with the new
scientific knowledge, notwithstanding the uncertainties that will always exist.
Considering that space technology allowed this intangible nature to become
perceivable by our senses, and the concept of planetary boundaries offered us the "genetic
105
code" of the functioning of Spaceship Earth, we now have an obligation to organize
ourselves and learn to steer collectively. In fact, the only thing that is truly within our
reach is managing and governing ourselves in respect of our interactions with the Earth
System. The creation of functional spaces without territory, thereby being global, may
constitute a fixed point, an element of stability, upon which we may base a new approach
and build an organization. In this sense, the possible construction of a new autonomous
legal good as a converging point of a looking-for process should focus on the evolution
of this combination of processes with shared origins and goals, continuing the search for
the stabilization of a space to be invented.
4.7. From a Space of Concerns to a Heritage
The concept of CHM as a legal one is one of the most revolutionary and radical
developments in the last 50 years of international law. Since its emergence, it became
clear that no other concept, notion, principle or doctrine provoked such intense debate
and controversy as did the possibility of attributing a heritage to both present and future
humanity. Its revolutionary and subversive character stems from the philosophical
concept of "humanity", which raises questions over legal regimes of resources that are
crucial for the maintenance of the living space for and by both present and future
generations.
Since the application and implementation of the CHM required critical re-evaluation
of many principles and doctrines of classical international law, this adverse context
inevitably resulted in an inadequate implementation9. Put otherwise, the application of
the model as originally proposed by Arvid Pardo (1976), without the recognition of the
different existing integration levels of the Earth System (unknown at that time), led to a
confrontation between an intellectually valid philosophical principle, that recognized the
ocean as a heritage of mankind and the lower system level where the model of political
and territorial fragmentation reigns.
As the current legal order only acknowledged some of the separate and individual
components of the Earth System and not the healthiness of the system as a whole at its
higher level, the CHM concept was inevitably pulled towards the only existing lower
level. At this point, a confrontation became unavoidable. It is true that the oceans possess
a territorial dimension, but the presence of a functional biochemical dimension that
106
determines their quality is no less of a truth. This dimension, incompatible with the legal
abstractions of political borders, is inevitably global.
In geographical terms, a dead and acidified ocean may continue to be the object of
jurisdictional divisions of sovereign powers but it may not serve as an existing life support
to marine life and humanity as a whole. It was this functional and qualitative oceanic
system that Arvid Pardo was referring to when he launched the concept of the heritage of
mankind in 1967.
As there was no legal distinction between the system and the place where the system
would operate, the CHM was limited to existing concepts, imprisoned within the
territorial dimension of place, becoming confined to leftover parts of state appropriations
lying outside state borders.
It was the only possible approach; and in fact, it still is. However, soon enough a
conflict was revealed between the interests and the territorial claims of states, rendering
the approach inoperable for goods that cannot be geographically defined, such as the
climate. This is why the vital good, a stable climate from which humanity has only been
able to receive the benefits in the last 10,000 years, has so far remained a concern or a
state of mind, reduced to a narrow concept of atmospheric pollution to be managed on a
territorial basis.
Amongst existing legal frameworks, it is difficult to embed and create a non-territory,
or a territory at global scale with intangible characteristics that escape the existing models
of physical and biological nature. The only reason the CHM has survived, even though it
subverts the model of political-territorial fragmentation, is due to the initial formulations
proving to be philosophically valid and ethically undeniable. Actually, there exists a
growing understanding that we are at the limits of international law and we need a radical
advancement, and CHM and its CCH substitutes and ineffective derivatives are concepts
that could open the door.
4.8. Holocene State as a Heritage Protected by Law
The process that gave birth to the period of the Holocene, unique in terms of climatic
stability in the history of the Earth,10 was a phenomenon of spontaneous emergence from
the combination of certain elements and their proportions, and which in their reciprocal
107
interactions formed a pattern, giving rise to a combined organizational "order". This
natural process should be embraced by humanity as one of the greatest gifts it received
from nature, as it was exactly these conditions that allowed for the development of human
civilizations and all the species of the planet that share the same ecological needs.
We are not able to protect this phenomenon of emergence or teleconnections but we
can protect the biogeophysical structures and processes of the state of the Earth System
that assure its maintenance. These biogeophysical structures and their internal relative
concentrations of gases are a gift to humanity that resulted from millions of years of
interactions at Earth's history scale. These intangible conditions have the highest value
for humankind. They are a true grundnorm, where other values, already legally protected,
and a system of organization should establish its locus, its basis of stability.
According to Rakhyun and Bosselmann (2013:283),
This context, the planetary boundaries framework, scientifically suggests the
existence of a foundational environmental principle or grundnorm, which, for the
purpose of our research, can be defined as a basic norm to bind any governmental
power. This understanding differs from Kelsen’s definition, and is closer to Kant’s
argument that any positive law must be grounded in a ‘natural’ norm of general
acceptance and reasonableness (Vernunft) to prevent pure arbitrariness. The
existence of an environmental grundnorm, therefore, rests on the assumption that
respecting planetary boundaries is a dictate of reason (Gebot der Vernunft) and
general acceptance (allgemeine Gültigkeit). Conceptually, a grundnorm exists
independently of a legal system, but underpins legal reasoning in the form of an
inference rule.
In this sense we can argue that the state of the Earth System corresponding to the
geological period of the Holocene carries the meaning of heritage as something we need
to conserve in everyone's interest. It enables the recognition of a new value to be legally
protected as an international autonomous legal good. “Heritage is one idea. It is a
philosophical idea, a legal concept, as is something that we need to conserve” (Sobrino
2012:4).
The evolution of the international community, the vital value of this state of the Earth
System and the heritage dimension derived from the need to transmit it to future
generations enable the recognition of something higher in scale than a concern or an
interest that should be legally protected as an autonomous legal good.
108
The evolution of a living space “concern” towards a common intangible natural
heritage of humankind as an authentic autonomous legal good seems a crucial conceptual
advance for the organization of human relations, which have broadened to a global scale.
With the scientific “safe operating space”, the legal concept of the living space could have
a value that can be measured.
As Sobrino (2012:5) stated,
I think this idea, to being more than an idea, must institutionalize itself (…) If we
combine the idea of heritage with the idea of an international authority and place
relative competences on it – not many are needed, apart from certain ones to
establish a multilateral framework for action – I think that would resolve many of
the current tensions.
The legal concept of heritage can be the locus for that vital good, the living intangible
space, represented by the safe operating space, and at the same time to be the support for
a global organization.
What is certain is that a purely formal legal approach towards the current notion of the
CHM will exclude the maintenance of this Earth System state within the biogeophysical
characteristics of the Holocene. The protection of a certain state of the Earth System can
only be legally framed by proceeding with an axiological and teleological interpretation
at the basis of the legal consecration of the CHM and its substitute derived concepts.
Arvid Pardo's vision that gave origin to the concept of CHM involved the perception
of the “ocean environment as an integrated fluid ecological system” and the concern “that
continued, unmanaged use of the world’s oceans would become a serious threat to
international peace and security from the environmental impact of new technologies, the
militarization of the seafloor and expanding state claims to jurisdiction over large parts
of the oceans”.11
To realize these objectives through the legal regime of the CHM involves
distinguishing the system concept and its intrinsic intangible quality from the territorial
and geographical approach of already existing legal concepts. But as Taylor & Stroud
(2012, 19) state, “Arvid Pardo (and others) considered the CHM regime flexible enough
to adapt to the emerging challenges, the discovery of new resources and values, such as
scientific research”.
Departing from this approach, unrealized due to theoretical and practical
impossibilities at the time, we will try to adjust the initial intentions of the CHM to the
109
current criteria for the intrinsic unit of the Earth System. While the artificial separation
between oceans, climate and biodiversity may be necessary for reasons of task
organization, this lower level of operation should not conceal the need for intervention in
the protection of biogeophysical conditions at the higher-level integration of the Earth
System. This intervention can be put into practice through application of international
standards on the quality of the Earth System state realized by the approach of the
planetary boundaries.
Nonetheless, it is of interest to understand that all the substitutes and derived concepts
gravitating around the CHM seek to plant a seed for the development of a normative
framework that offers alternatives to governing the global common goods, and not only
the areas and resources beyond its jurisdictions. So, in order for the CHM to become an
operational/normative concept, its object needed to be deterritorialised and made to
coincide with the initial concepts and premises formulated by Arvid Pardo.
The entire range of more or less indeterminate concepts pursue the same unique end,
the reason for their existence being the absence of instruments that could somehow
constitute an object of intellectual representation of reality, in this case the Earth System
as a whole within a state that supports the living space. It is therefore crucial to understand
in detail the differences between the concept of CHM and the CCH derived from it. Based
on the proposal of Murillo (2008), we will compare them with recent knowledge
regarding the safe operating space for humankind and how they may be re-framed so as
to correspond to recent scientific evolutions.
110
TERRITORIAL
SCOPE
CHM Areas beyond national jurisdiction and its
resources
CCH
A wider scope – applied in the intangible higher
level, both beyond national jurisdiction but also
within the jurisdiction of states.
SUBJECT SCOPE
CHM The main focus is related to the geographical areas
beyond national jurisdiction and its resources.
CCH
Focused in functional intangible spaces that are a
“concern” to humanity as whole. At present, the
matters are climate change, species in danger and
conservation of biodiversity.
The intrinsic intangible ecological quality does not
exist autonomously on the geographical space.
Therefore, the CCH continues without a clear and
precise definition, liable to generate rights and
duties.
DISTRIBUTIVE
SCOPE
CHM Equitable sharing of benefits.
CCH Equitable sharing of burdens – cooperation and
problem solving.
Figure 6. Differences between Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) and Common
Concern of Humankind (CCH)
From the analysis of different perspectives of the approach that considers the Earth
System as a unique systemic whole with intrinsic limits regarding its state, we are able to
identify the following advantages and disadvantages.
111
TERRITORIAL SCOPE
The CCH offers a more adequate
response to the characteristics of the
Earth System both in and outside
sovereignties. But it has the
disadvantage of not having a locus,
unlike the CHM, so it cannot be
attached to a space on which an
organization can be built.
SUBJECT SCOPE
The CHM carries the advantage of
being able to delimit the area or
resource in question, while the CCH has
a problem with the intangibility of the
object.
DISTRIBUTIVE SCOPE
From the perspective of the Earth
System, damages and benefits, caused
and produced upon the Earth System as
a whole, are shared.
Figure 7. Comparative Analysis of Common Heritage of Mankind and Common
Concern of Humankind
In summary, we can say that while one has a locus and does not possess an appropriate
territorial scope, the other has the appropriate territorial scope but does not have a locus.
In regard to the distributive scope, the sum of both may adequately address the
characteristics of globally shared damages and benefits at the level of the Earth System.
In this sense, the combination of some of the characteristics of both concepts may
bring the necessary advances in law and international relations with the objective to
constructing an institutional architecture more adapted to the environmental living space
in response to a collective concern of humanity.
112
4.9. An Evolutional Legal Living Space
Both concepts of living space of the CCH and the safe operating space of humankind
maintain the common characteristic of being intangible non-territorial spaces regarding
the biogeochemical conditions of a certain state of the Earth System that supported
favourable conditions for human life on Earth. However, their origins are different – one
legal, the other scientific. This primordial nature is found on the level of the meta-heritage
or constituent heritage (Soromenho-Marques 2006), an intangible natural heritage that is
the fundamental basis for the intelligibility of all other types of tangible natural heritage
already known. It is represented by the processes of life or the major circulatory element
flows, which in a previous analogy was referred to as the software relationship of the
Earth System.
As a concept, ‘state’, which is profoundly rooted within territorial space, does not
include the global software that supports the life system on Earth. The ‘safe operating
space for humankind’, as the best available integrated piece of scientific information with
the capacity to elaborate on emerging phenomena in a systemic way, may constitute a
keystone of this announced evolution. The question then becomes whether this scientific
instrument is sufficient to represent the multiple realities of the Earth System as a whole
and in an immutable way.
Although there is still uncertainty regarding the quantification of limits and the
existence of planetary limits, they are clear and entirely consistent with the science of
complex systems. As we cannot “aspire to a immutability of physical biological and
chemical elements” (Canotilho 1991:123), it will be necessary to operate permanently on
an evolutionary flexibility. The ecological paradigm is characterised by complex
processes, which inevitably engender uncertainty. “It is up to the law to transform this
ecological uncertainty into a social certainty” (Morand 1995:212).
In this sense, this living space will always be a scientific representation of a dynamic
system. Therefore, the instrument used for its interpretation will also need to be flexible,
dynamic and evolving, allowing a dialogue between the human species and the Earth
System that we are part of. The creation of a new international intangible space, while
founded in an ever-developing science, will have to be founded on a socially constructed
"value" that will guarantee its existence independent from scientific evolutions on the
Earth System.
113
The important thing will be the concept that there is an intangible living space, both in
and outside sovereignties. Considering present scientific knowledge, this corresponds to
the safe operating space of the Holocene, but the concrete definition of limits and
elements to be taken into account within this socially constructed space will evolve along
the line of continuous, evolutionary and dynamic knowledge on the Earth System.
Once again, as Morin (1990:8) states, complex thought “has no intent to replace the
ambition of simple thinking, which is to control and dominate the real. It is a thought
experiment that is capable of handling the real, and negotiate and enter in dialogue with
it”.
The key will be to find an instrument that represents the known reality of the Earth
System, allowing us to enter in dialogue with it.
4.10. Applying CHM to the Earth System
From the initial intentions and derived concepts that evolved from the CHM concept
will result a new legal object based on the fundamental separation between the res
incorporales relative to the intangible dimension, qualitative and functional of the Earth
System (higher level of integration), and the res corporals, referring to the territorial
spaces (land, oceans and areal space, i.e., the lower level of integration) in which these
functions and qualities develop.
In this sense, we advance a proposal for an evolution incorporating the combined
elements for an axiological interpretation of CHM applied to the Earth System:
• The biogeophysical structure of the Holocene period is part of the international
common heritage (patrimony) and therefore belongs to all humanity in common.
This means it cannot be owned, enclosed or disposed of (i.e., appropriated) by any
state/s or entity. As a commons it can be used, but not owned, either as private or
common property or via the claim of sovereign rights;
• The use of the common heritage framework shall be carried out in accordance
with a system of cooperative management, for the benefit of all humanity (or
common good). This has been interpreted as creating a type of trust relationship,
with states acting as trustees for the benefit of all humanity (i.e., for the common
114
good, not for the exclusive benefit of states/private entities) including future
generations, taking into account the particular needs and interests of developing
states (intra-generational equity);
• There exists a permanent sharing of damage and benefits realized over the state
of the Earth System. It will be necessary to construct an accounting system in
order to account for the contributions of each state towards the desired state of the
Earth System, and next develop an equitable system of derived compensations for
the different uses of the CHM;
• A global entity should be created with exclusive functions in coordination of
compensations and the development of projects for the maintenance of this
common heritage of mankind.
TERRITORIAL
SCOPE
Scope The Earth System as a whole – applied both
beyond and within the jurisdiction of States.
Form of
Representation
The higher level of Earth System
integration. The intangible nature. The well-
defined status of the Earth System
corresponding to the geological age of the
Holocene.
SUBJECT SCOPE
Scope
Representation of a functional living space
for humanity as whole, in a trans-temporal
dimension. The safe operating space of
humankind.
Form of
Representation Planetary Boundaries Framework
DISTRIBUTIVE
SCOPE
Scope
Equitable sharing of benefits and burdens
through a system of compensations –
ECOBALANCE
Form of
Representation
An aggregated metric with the ability to
represent the positive and negative impacts
realized upon the Earth System.
115
Figure 8. Features of a possible evolution of CHM/CCH to a Common Intangible Natural Heritage of
Humankind
This possible pathway of the natural heritage, from the “materially and geographically
definable” to the “immaterial and intangible”, is similar to the consolidation of cultural
heritage. The importance of cultural heritage was consecrated in UNESCO's Convention
concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972, but 30 years
later it was acknowledged that cultural heritage cannot be limited to what can be seen or
touched, so immaterial heritage was included in the Convention for the Safeguarding of
Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003.
The time has now come for intangible nature to be recognized as a vital resource for
all humankind – a common intangible natural heritage of humankind.
4.11. Conclusion
It is now recognized in the current doctrine that international law is not yet equipped
to handle the ecological goods that exist simultaneously in and outside of all states. There
exists a structural, theoretical flaw in the approach to the global “whole”. This flaw
extends to the time dimension of the chain of successive human generations. The global
commons have always been (and continue to be) understood as geographical spaces that
only exist outside the political borders of states. Likewise, humanity and its future
generations, despite being repeatedly referred to in international conventions, do not
possess a legal status that corresponds with an efficient protection.
The global, diffuse and intangible dimension of a vital good such as a stable climate,
existing both within and outside all states, with the effects of the damage caused upon it
extending over several generations, transformed this traditional approach into an
ecological nonsense. The dysfunctionality of existing legal instruments not only has long
since been detected but has also been the object of several attempts to build concepts,
which, however, are soon found to be inoperative, with no legal consequences in terms
of rights and duties.
116
Alongside the increasing understanding of the functioning of the Earth System,
together with the possibility to measure its state through the planetary boundaries, a giant
leap was taken towards the unravelling of the nebula composed of legally vague and
undefined concepts disseminated in national and international legal texts. International
Law expressions such as the common concern of mankind, common interest, life-support
system, intergeneration equity, ecological integrity and sustainable development can now
be sustained by a pattern of indicators that may be used to translate and delineate the lack
of legal definitions, opening up new perspectives in the construction of solutions that will
overcome the dysfunctionality between the ecological reality and the existing legal
framework.
These vital factors, translated through these indicators, as they are global and diffuse,
are still legally non-existent and considered “external” to social organization. They are
the known economic externalities, either positive (regulating ecosystem services) or
negative (pollution).
The concept of the common heritage of mankind has stayed tied to the geographical
areas of political division between states. Until now, World Heritage has only been
applied to goods that, despite their outstanding universal value from an aesthetic or
scientific point of view, are found within the geographical area of a state.
These two legal concepts (CHM and WH) will possess a greater potential for
evolution towards instruments capable of protecting this vital and global good, and their
sum can cover the geographical area in which the Earth System operates. The World
Heritage has already made the shift from tangible cultural heritage towards intangible
cultural heritage. It seems that we can now reproduce this pathway in regard to the natural
heritage (Aragão 2016). So, being in the possession of a way to represent a favourable
state of the Earth System through the structure of biogeochemical concentrations that
remained relatively stable over the last 11,700 years – the Holocene period – we propose
the recognition of a well-defined state of the Earth System as a world natural intangible
heritage of mankind. This new natural intangible heritage should be the locus on which
to construct a system for the management and maintenance of Earth System use. Upon
establishing rules applying to the use of the Earth System, we are also securing the
minimum conditions for the dignity of future generations. But before undertaking
institutional reform, we need a concept that allows for a solution that will fill the gap
between the theory underlying the organization of international institutions and the reality
of Earth System dynamics.
117
This is a structural prerequisite to building the equity and trust needed for collective
action. In this sense, it will be a structural instrument for the application of human rights.
118
Chapter 5
Earth Condominium – A legal model for the Anthropocene “It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms independently before we can find them in things.”
Albert Einstein
5.1. Political Impossibility?
In a seminar organized by the Academy of Environmental Law (IUCN), Simone Borg
(2001) presented a paper with the title “Climate Change as a Common Concern of
Humankind.” In it he posed two fundamental questions:
1) Is it necessary to identify the legal status of climate?
2) Will we gain anything from doing so?
We have accepted that the good to be put under the protection of the law is not only
the climate but a well-defined state of the Earth System, as Olfield and Steffen (2004)
have already demonstrated. Now, it seems to us that any satisfactory attempt to answer
these questions can only be made if we first answer another question asked by Alexander
Kiss (1982.121) on the definition of res communis: “Of course, one may question the
exact meaning of this concept: is it a common sovereignty, a co-ownership, a
condominium? We must recognize that this question has never been solved in a
completely satisfactory manner – that is precisely one of the major arguments of the
advocates of the conception res nullius.”
This statement redirects the point from the need to recognize a legal status for the
climate or the Earth System to the real crux of the issue: whether there is a legal
framework able to receive and integrate a new legal status with respect to a good that is
119
simultaneously inside and outside of all sovereignties. The problem is establishing the
type of res communis of this new legal good, and that will be decisive in its new legal
status being, or not, compatible and integrated in the existing legal framework. It is in the
absence of a clear definition of what a “global common good” is exactly, that is, what is
the res communis ommnium which is not restricted to the global commons but spans also
across areas subject to national jurisdiction (Borg 2007), that creates the breeding ground
in which all uncertainties can germinate. This absence is the epicentre of our legal nebula,
our confusion, our legal black hole through which the most vital factors for our future
disappear. Awareness has been growing that the term common concern can only express
our embarrassment, our incapacity to define in a simple manner, to name in a clear way
or capture with words a vague terrain of ideas.
When one states that the common concern was the fall-back solution because there
was no real political will to build a new legal object, this is only partially correct. In fact,
without first identifying the legal regime of res communis needed to reconcile the intrinsic
characteristics of the new legal object with the existing international legal framework,
even if there had been political will to recognize the existence of a new legal good, the
result would probably not have been very different from the existent incompatibilities
that continue to relegate CHM to the ever- smaller remaining parts of jurisdictions, and
the CCH for a future always postponed.
A desirable conservation of the Earth System cannot be regulated effectively if it is
based only on international laws sustained purely on interstate consent and reciprocity. A
new legal framework must be built that ensures also the protection and promotion of
common interests by representing the interests of all humankind. Without this, vital
factors will continue to be perceived as concerns, or will conflict with ecological
nonsense2 approaches. The question “How can we admit that a good that belongs to no
one may be governed by a specific law?” (Kiss 1982:122) implies understanding what
theoretical legal framework is more able to explain and receive this new object of law. If
the basic statement that the absence of ownership is synonymous with not being governed
and therefore being a res nullius is correct, how is it possible that a new global legal
object, called here the favourable state of the Earth System, can come into being and be
ruled in a context of a fragmented territorial sovereignty without any legal representation
of a global res communis?
The remaining ecological space (Rockstrom 2014), scientifically represented by the
safe operating space for humankind of planetary boundaries and the living space as the
120
non-territorial space of the CCH, “can be considered as a fine-tuned version of the res
communis status of global natural resources in light of the contemporary developments”
(Borg 2009:4). This view could also correspond with the problem of res communis
definition, as reported by Kiss. But perhaps the main response to Borg’s original question
is the need of the good to belong to someone in order to be ruled and not be a res nullius.
5.2. Two Different Levels of the Earth System, Two Different Levels of Human Relations
If we need to change our relationship with our life-supporting system from exploitation
to stewardship, humanity has to self-organize within this remaining living space and
ensure its maintenance in a well-functioning condition. This means that the main task is
the internal organization between all the users of the same resource on a global scale. This
fact puts humanity in the unavoidable position of relating internally in two different
scales. This means that it will be in the way the Earth System is used that the relationships
between all communities and individuals will be established.
Like all complex systems, the Earth System has two levels of integration, a lower level
of component parts and processes and a higher level that constitutes the whole system
with its emergent properties that cannot be understood or described by simply aggregating
the component parts up the global level. The first level is related to the geographical area,
that is, the heterogeneous physical planet with 510 million km2 on which different state
sovereignties operate and that is also the locus, the hardware of the Earth System. The
higher level (the Earth System itself) is intangible as it arises from the global
interconnections and emerging phenomena through which global human relations are
mediated. This higher level developed in an evolutionary fashion throughout Earth's
history and it is through this evolutionary process involving the living part of the planet
as well as the geophysical that, for example, the relative concentrations of gases remain
relatively constant through time. A key process of the Earth System is self-regulation,
which consists of feedback loops formed by component parts of the system (both inside
and outside of all sovereignty and incapable of any legal abstraction of division) that work
synergistically to keep the system in well-defined states.
121
In essence, it is the integration of the geophysical properties of the planet with the
living biosphere that forms the intangible Earth System, a single global system incapable
of any legal abstraction of division. In this sense, the intangible Earth System is an
authentic law of nature, already described by science and recognized as the "principles"
that govern the natural phenomena of the system. Humanity, as an integral component of
the Earth System, is also dependent on those principles, and, as such, humanity is related
to the Earth System on two distinct levels in equal terms.
On a lower level, humanity is organized as independent political communities around
a defined territory. On the higher level, the relationships are established and mediated
through the use of a single common system, the Earth System, which does not exist
legally and as a consequence is unmanaged.
So the main answer to Borg’s initial question has to do with the reconfiguration of
inter-subjective relations between all users of the same resource. As stated by Filipe et
al. (2007:84), “It is from the relationships established when carrying out the use of the
resource that arise concepts as the right to common property or private property”.
5.3. A Heritage to Organize Relations
Since the use of the common resource, called here the favourable state of the Earth
System is extensive temporally and its effects are intergenerational, it is also through this
resource that relationships are established between generations past, present and unborn.
Theory has defined property not only by the individual’s relationship with the inherent
characteristics of the object but also to include the underlying relationship between the
owner and all other individuals. According to Hang (2003), the most relevant is the
relationship between individuals, because property rights are a relationship between
individuals in relation to a resource, not a relationship between an individual and the
resource”. Once the use of this limited resource is not exclusive to any "user" and no user
can exclude access to any other, in global terms we are facing a situation of common
ownership extended to the scale of all humankind (Res communes ominium). From the
moment it is discovered that a resource considered inexhaustible is, after all, exhaustible,
internal relations are equally reconfigured among all users of that resource. For
Schmid(1995) property rights represent a set of ordered relationships among people
which define their opportunities, their exposure to the acts of others, their privileges and
122
their responsibilities for resource utilization”. When the resource in question is a res
incorporales relative to a certain favourable state of the Earth System that everyone
depends on, all users share the consequences of the acts of others.
Constructing a system to organize each actor’s privileges and responsibilities
regarding the use of a resource that belongs to everyone, born and unborn, becomes a
matter of survival.
To that extent, the legal recognition of a favourable state of the Earth System as a
common heritage of mankind should primarily result in a regulatory instrument of
relationships between individuals, states and communities. That is, if everyone has access
to the good and its benefits, and no one can be excluded, we will have to answer questions
like: Who is responsible for maintaining it? and What are the rules for using it (rights and
duties)?
The legal absence of the good also corresponds to a social failure, to the res nullius,
that is, the absence of rules between individuals or states on the use of the good. The
perceived relevance of the underlying relations of property ownership will be the most
decisive factor in justifying the need to recognize legally the existence of the Earth
System, and to give it a patrimonial dimension.
When we structure global and inter-subjective relations based on the relationships
established through the use of a common good to which is assigned a value per se, we are
simultaneously building a system to ensure its maintenance and allowing the construction
of a larger global justice as they are intrinsically related.
As a result, the preservation of the new legal good should result from a collective
action internally organized between the users rather than by a legal obligation. Thereby,
the new heritage shall be the mediator of a dialectical relationship developed on a global
scale between social internal relations and the object (Earth System). To that extent,
planetary boundaries should not be perceived as a new prohibition but as the limits that
underlie and justify our self-organization. We can even say that the ultimate goal of
acknowledging this common natural intangible heritage of humankind is the construction
of a globally organized society around a common heritage, an intangible locus around
which humankind organizes itself.
If nothing can exist in pure disorder, the survival of the human species as a whole
depends on its ability to self-organize. So, it’s at the level of consequences for subjective
relationships in the internal organization between users of the common resource that the
123
greatest justification for the legal consecration of a well-defined state of the Earth System
lies.
If one accepts that the legal recognition of a favourable state of the Earth System is a
basic structural factor for the organization/regulation of the internal relations of humanity,
a key question remains unanswered: Will it be possible to conciliate in a symbiotic way
the existence of one global legal support (the legal status of Earth System) with the
fragmented territorial sovereignty? Taking as a starting point the two levels of the existing
relations, we will try to understand which model of res communis is better able to
accurately portray the facts: "the common sovereignty, co-ownership, the
condominium?” (Kiss 1982:122).
5.4. Divide to Organize
Taking as a starting point the unique characteristics of the climate and the Earth
System as a whole, and the alternatives presented by Kiss (1982), it seems that the
hypotheses of both common sovereignty and co-ownership imply the maintenance of the
idea that there is a separation between what is within the borders and the res communis,
which corresponds with the leftover areas of the division. In this sense, none of these
models seem to have the necessary characteristics to be able to deal satisfactorily with
the problem of activities affecting negatively an Intangible Natural Resource, which
spans across and beyond the national territories of States (Borg 2009). This overlap of
interests between the private interests of states and the interests of all humanity has an
inherent condition of interdependence: it is mutually beneficial or mutually destructive.
The problem of reconciling seemingly opposing interests in a situation of symbiotic
interdependence is not new to legal sciences, and it was structured through a private law
figure that defines the situation where a materially indivisible thing, or a thing with a
unitary structure, belongs to various co-owners where each one has private or exclusive
rights of ownership over determined fractions and at the same time, are co-owners of the
parts of the building, which constitutes its common structure. This juridical figure is
known as a condominium.
In order for this model to transform a theoretical impossibility into a solution, it was
necessary to innovate and not be limited by the application of pre-existing forms of
dominium. Once neither private property nor co-ownership could deal with the
relationships established through the ownership and use of a materially indivisible
124
building, the condominium was invented. First it accepted the unitary and indivisible
nature of a building and then built a system that would adapt to this seemingly
unsurpassable circumstance. It argued against what was previously considered to be
irrefutable and created a model of ownership that cannot be associated with any other
form of ownership. As magistrate Luís Hernanz Cano (1998:41) says, Spanish
jurisprudence has perceived horizontal property as “special property” or “complex
property”. Its accurate designations are clearly a sign of its complexity: “house by
storeys”, “condominium of storeys”, “pro indivisio communities”, autonomous fraction”,
and “community with rights in rem” (Cano 1998: 41). The motive for such complexity is
the coexistence of apparently contradictory and antagonistic elements, which, if
considered superficially, may create the supposition that the presence of one implies the
absence of the other and is hardly translatable in the reductive language of definitions.
The urgent need for a solution led to one capable of combining within the same
materially indivisible building a separation that allows several individuals to use the same
floor as housing. Additionally, it envisages: a) that each individual has a unique right to
ownership of a fraction of the building, making possible the legal trade of these
properties; b) the existence of a system of contributions to ensure the maintenance of
systems of common use (water, electricity, elevators) and the parts that are legally and
materially impossible to divide (stairs, roof, structure, etc.), which must all be maintained
in a dependable state.
The model of the condominium, or complex property, is not a community or an
arithmetic sum of individual properties. It is something complex that elevates the law to
the art of reconciling the extremes, of making symbiotically dependent what was
apparently incompatible (Magalhães 2007:87).
Although with some nuances, this theoretical model has been used recurrently
throughout history in international law, in situations of shared rivers, small islands,
territorial enclaves, territories under dispute and in undefined political situations or even
at the level of small communities wishing to establish access to certain resources related
to rural activities. Even the Antarctica Treaty System of 1959 is considered by some as a
de facto condominium (Glennon 1991), since it is not a sovereign territory (although
various nations claim parts of its territory as their own) and provides voting authority for
28 nations to jointly govern the area. In all, 50 countries are part of the “condominium”
although some consider it a “quasi-condominium” (Hemmings 2014).
125
The use of civil juridical institutes originating from national laws is not new in
international law. For some authors it is even recommended. Weeramantry (2000:195)
points out that:
In view of the speed of progress and of technology, the national laws and
international law should follow the movement and increase their productive and
adaptive ability. New concepts and procedures should rapidly be sought to confront
the new situations, which are a result of technology’s progress. For this effect,
international law should firstly be aware of all the essential traditions of the
different civilizations and adopt a multicultural attitude. Numerous principles of
international law, which will be adopted in the future, may be released from the
traditional juridical systems existent in the world and through which international
law may receive its strength and inspiration.
The change from the soft law to the hard law should be accelerated, thus making
international law more fit to adapt itself to the needs of our time. National laws will
take advantage of the norms and of the universal patterns, which will equally
improve the internal systems.
In the classical approach, commons management is doomed to the fate of the "tragedy
of the commons". Hardin’s work transformed a growing pessimism around the
“commons” into a global scale pessimism, also called by some doctrines as the “tragedy
of the common heritage of mankind" (Shackelford 2008). It considers “communal
sovereignty may be seen as a temporary placeholder that exists until technology enables
occupation of property making it worthwhile for States to assert national sovereignty in
the oldest traditions of the Westphalian system”. In this view, “establishing property
rights has been commonly seen in the Western world as the solution to commons
management; once occupation of a territory is possible, then property rights become
necessary to catalyze development” (Shackelford 2008:120). This heads to the still-
dominant doctrine that points out as a unique solution the division and privatization of
the good. However, ecological interdependence has shown that it is necessary to develop
a new theory to explain phenomena that do not fit in a dichotomous world divided
between individual/state interests and collective/humanity interests. In an attempt to
develop legal or economic instruments to involve collective interests, the conditions that
block a class action or give rise to a conflict are recognized.
126
In his analysis of the strategy of conflict, Schelling (1960), winner of the Nobel Prize
for Economics and one of the fathers of the theory of games, showed that many social
interactions can be seen as non-cooperative games that involve both common and
conflicting interests. In fact, Schelling sought to consolidate the idea that almost any
problem involving the decisions of more than one person simultaneously contains
elements of conflict and common interest. It is in the apparent contradiction of the
symbiotic relationship between individual and collective interests (masterfully defined by
Kant, “Only in the pursuit of common interests can we guarantee our individual rights)”4
that we will try to reinterpret the analyses already carried out on the structural paradox of
these interrelationships, which are exercised in an mutually advantageous form or a failed
coordination would give rise to high costs for all parties (Filipe et al. 2007). The
condominium transforms dichotomous dogma into accidental truth, and achieves, without
denying the classic solution of division, the integration and symbiotic unification with the
common property.
The big news is that although the condominium divides in order to organize the
different tasks and responsibilities, these are carried out not only to define distinct private
properties but also to distinguish all private properties from parts and systems that are in
a regime of common ownership. It is precisely through the distinction between different
types of ownership over the same materially undivided good that this form of “complex
property” can harmonise the different private and common interests, making this overlap
of properties perfectly symbiotic.
Separation is managed through a legal abstraction, allowing the existence, within each
individual fraction, of elements that appear to be private but are actually common (e.g.,
main walls, structure, exterior walls, roofs, water distribution system, and electricity).
The operation is not just a mere division of spaces but a division with qualitative and
functional criteria regarding the intrinsic nature of the different elements in a building.
The criterion on which this approach is based is that all those constituent and
functional elements whose lack of maintenance implies damage for all owners of
individual properties within the building should be integrated into the co-ownership
regime. That is, common parts are all parts of a building that cannot be materially
assigned to only one owner, as well as all elements and systems that are decisive for the
operation and security of the entire building, obliging all to participate in their
maintenance.
127
Only through a clear identification of what those elements are and what is under
common ownership is it possible to establish a system that ensures the maintenance of
the common parts together with the systems and services that are of common interest. In
other words, only the precise definition of all the elements that are in co-ownership will
make possible to assign responsibility for the management and maintenance of such
property, and create a contribution system among all the owners in pursuit of common
interests.
The process of this theoretical construction was not a conceptual process that was then
applied to the good, dividing it arbitrarily. On the contrary, it departed from the unitary
character of the property, identified the elements that by their nature are essential to
maintaining the structure and operation of the building, and considered as private all those
spaces and goods whose individual ownership does not pose a problem to the unitary and
functional characteristics of the common good.
This overlap between private interest and communal interests assumes that every
homeowner simultaneously pursues private property rights on their fraction and co-
ownership of common elements, having the right and obligation to participate in decisions
concerning the management of common interests. “This duality of rights – private
ownership and co-ownership of common elements – will definitely mark the unique and
original character of this legal model. As in all situations where the antitheses touch and
complement each other, there is a fertile field for searching for appropriate definitions
and explanations of a reality that is complex” (Magalhães 2007:86).
Spanish jurisprudence considered it to be an authentic masterpiece of legal
construction after 1960:
The ownership of homes by storeys is an institution of a complex nature, whose
type is the right to ownership, but within it, it constitutes a class detached from the
traditional ones, and it is useless to search for similarities or partial identity since
there is no community because of the private elements belonging to various owners;
nor does servitude help to explain the situation of all the common things, but merely
determines relations which only exist between the owners of two or more storeys,
but which affect everyone.
As Hang (2003) understands, the most relevant is the relationship between individuals.
More important than any similarity regarding the type of the good or its scale is the
structure of relationships that arise around the ownership or use of a particular materially
128
indivisible good. In this regard, also in terms of the scale of the Earth System as a whole,
the most important point to understand is the structure of relationships established
through the common use of the same global and unitary system, the Earth System, so that
a legal abstraction cannot divide it.
Assuming that the ecological problem is not a malfunction of the Earth System but
rather a poor adaptation of human society to its functioning, it seems to us that the path
to a possible solution, rather than ideological or techno/scientific choice, should be a
technical answer in the social sciences with special resort to law. Here we mean law not
as a system of sanctions and prohibitions but rather in its prior function of organization
and regulation of human relations but widened to a global scale.
5.5. Divide to Unite
All spaces that have become accessible to humans throughout history have been
subject to their legal definition. The possibility of humanity as a whole to become a
geological force capable of changing the state of the Earth System requires that the
intangible non-territorial space, the living space, represented through the core drivers of
the state of the Earth System, becomes a safe space where its use is subject to order.
The problem arises because this new space has a new character, not geographical and
territorial, distinguishable and therefore completely distinct from all other spaces
previously discovered, even when compared to space exploration where the existence of
intangible natural resources is already recognized today. This non-spatial space is not
external to the planet but part of the Earth System, and is present inside and outside of all
sovereignty, creating an inextricable link between the activities of states within national
territory and its effects on climate (...) an unprecedented situation in international law
(Borg 2007). It is from this overlap that the need for international law innovation (Prieur
2012) comes, regarding the still- dominant view that represents reality only under an optic
that what is common to all humankind are the remaining areas of territorial political
divisions. A clear distinction between this new intangible space and the territorial
geographical space is only possible through the use of the latest scientific knowledge on
the functioning of the Earth System as a whole. The possible legal definition of this new
space and the resulting regulatory order of its use constitute per se a change in the
conceptual paradigm of the international legal system. This innovation, because it is
structural, implies a theoretical framework that allows an overlapping of legal regimes
129
between the res corporales concerning the sovereign territorial spaces of states and the
natural res incorporales concerning the global living space, that is, the qualitative
dimension of the structure of biogeochemical concentrations of oceans or the atmosphere,
which are global and impossible to divide by any legal abstraction.
It is this overlap between the territorial space of sovereignty and the global intangible
space of the living space that requires clarification of the type of res communis better able
to portray the reality where tangible and intangible spaces overlap and affect human
relations. The fact that the system is common and indivisible, that all people have equal
access to it and no one is able to exclude any other from using it, is exposed to all others
by virtue of sharing globally the damages, which in turn also result in very different uses,
requires us to look at this deep interdependence from a legal perspective. Everything
becomes even more complex when, for the same reasons, the benefits realized by the
ecological infrastructure in the state of Earth System are equally shared by all on a global
scale.
The distinction made by the Roman legal system between source and resource can be
extremely useful in clarifying the structure of the relationships resulting from different
uses of the common system. As we have already stated, “res communis differs from res
nullius in that the source of resources cannot be appropriated but the resources
themselves are amenable to appropriation” (Oosterlinck 1996:2).
The favourable state of the Earth System resulted from an evolutionary process
throughout Earth's history involving the interactions between the living biosphere of the
planet and the geophysical part, that is, the ecological infrastructures are the sources of
this favourable state, and that allowed the development of human civilization. The
resource is the favourable intangible structure of biogeochemical concentrations on the
Earth System. In other words, the resource emerged from the interactions of the sources.
Conversely, in this situation, by its very nature, the source is appropriable (the
ecological infrastructures are under the territorial jurisdiction of states) but not the
resource, that is, the resource is dispersed all over the planet and its appropriation is
physically impossible, as is any legal abstraction of division. In this regard, although the
sources are under state jurisdiction, with territorial jurisdiction over the areas where the
ecological structures exist, the benefits realized by these structures in the state of Earth
System (resource) are inevitably common.
On the other hand, if all states use the system, all of them have sources that contribute
to the maintenance of that favourable state. However, the disparity between areas and the
130
performance of different ecosystems on qualitative and quantitative levels generate large
differences between states with regard to positive contributions to the maintenance of that
favourable state. If we add to this discrepancy the differences between different uses, we
fall into a chasm of inequality.
This really is a truly new situation in the history of international law, and neither a
state-centred sovereignty nor communal sovereignty (in an isolated way) can read the
relationships established through the use of the same indivisible common system.
The tension generated by the interdependence of benefits and harms shared on a global
scale in a juxtaposition of interests is a complex equation that requires a complex solution,
which does not sit well with the simplified concept of geographic territorial division.
In terms of buildings, the success of the condominium model was due largely to the
dual approach of the internal differentiation. It not only used a spatial criterion in order
to internally distinguish the private spaces of the common spaces but functional criteria,
even within the private spaces, that identified certain elements which, due to their
characteristics and functions, impacted the safety and functional units of the building.
These would have to be regarded as common since, if the maintenance was not provided
by the private owner, the damages would be collective. By overlapping different legal
regimes (private and co-ownership) and simultaneous use of spatial and functional
criteria, it is possible to ensure the autonomy of private property symbiotically with the
functional unit of the building. This dualistic approach to the internal differentiation of
complex property in respect of buildings can be summarized as follows:
Buildings:
a) Space division – Division of the spaces between each private fraction and division
between the sum of all the private fractions and the remaining parts that are
materially indivisible (we refer here to the stairs, common corridors, roof,
entrance, etc.).
b) Functional division – Non-spatial division, whose criteria is the functional
character of the building components regardless of their location being within or
outside the private fractions. Technically, these components are materially
indivisible, and it is not even possible to carry out a legal abstraction for division.
In these situations, these components with common functions are mixed within
the private spaces, creating an overlap of legal regimes. Any attempt to materially
131
or legally divide these components would result in the loss of their functionality
(we refer here to the building support structure, supporting walls, water supply
systems, drainage, electricity system, communications, etc.).
If the approach to the legal organization of buildings had stayed purely spatial, all
components essential to the proper functioning of the building within private fractions
would be private. That means that the cost of its maintenance would be private but the
benefits would inevitably be collective. As a result, there would be no maintenance of
common functional components, which could lead to a collective tragedy. Without
adequate legal solutions to the factual circumstances of buildings, the towns we know
today, although technically possible, would be a political impossibility.
The legal framework of the condominium is a kind of hybrid property; without denying
the classic solution of division, it allows the integration of separate and independent
fractions with the functional unit of the entire building in a symbiotic way. Its legitimacy
was based on its ability to reflect the facts of a complex reality, and to shape the need of
property, use and maintenance of the good through an equally complex model of overlap
of the two property regimes.
It seems to us that the great innovation was the starting point for the analysis: firstly,
the functional unit of the building was taken into account through an identification of the
structural elements ensuring safety and operation, and only after this task had been carried
out was the space division considered, which enabled goods that are under a regime of
common ownership to exist within the private spaces. It was through this internal
differentiation that defining and delimiting different responsibilities, duties and equitable
contributions to the maintenance and prosecution of common interests were possible.
This overlap and coordination of the operations of division allowed symbiotically what
was once a theoretical impossibility.
The inadequacy of sovereignty to reflect the real situation in the world is apparent in
its inability to reflect the intrinsic factual features of the Earth System as a whole, treating
different realities equally.
If we adapt scales and perform the same operation on the common home of humanity,
the planet Earth, we find an almost perfect similarity regarding the type of
interdependencies established by relations between neighbours who inhabit a materially
indivisible building with a functional unit.
132
The growing disjunction between the functional domain of biogeophysical
interconnections and the territorial scope of sovereignty has transformed the classic
Westphalian approach into an ecological nonsense.2 The necessary evolution for the
concept of sovereignty lies in its ability to integrate the reality of the existence of a
borderless global common that is not limited to the remaining areas of sovereignty. And
from this integration, in turn, must emerge a concept of sovereignty that reflects rather
than defies environmental reality (Brunnée 1998). If it is true that international commons
are threatened due to technological progress and increased resource competition, and to
reach the point where “the international commons must thus evolve to survive”
(Shackelford 2008:104), it is equally true that all sovereignties are also threatened by the
"global commons" still being subject to a legal uncertainty and unregulated use, as is the
case with the Earth System (which includes the climate).
The solution will inevitably be a legal construction, and therefore the technical choices
for operationalizing a global response are not different. These choices can result in either
a global conflict, as a war of all against all, or the creation of a platform of solidarity, a
forerunner of a globally organized society.
A new organization of global neighbourly relations requires an approach with the
ability to reflect the overlap of these two realities. For this, a dualistic approach on a
global scale becomes necessary, as it takes into account not only the existing territorial
division (where global commons are only the remaining areas of sovereignty) but, in an
overlapped manner, identifies the functional elements responsible for the state of the
Earth System.
Accordingly, the corresponding bio-geochemistry structure of the favourable state of
the Holocene period should be identified as the most important common resource, which
should be the subject of a legal definition and be covered by a legal system regulating its
use.
The Earth condominium would then be the legal representation of a reality in which
there is a clear overlap and mix between the tangible and intangible dimensions of the
Earth System. Legally it would be a juxtaposition between the tangible territorial areas of
the Earth System under the sovereign jurisdiction of states, and the entire intangible
structure that moves through the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and biogeochemical
cycles that, together, determine the movement of energy and materials through the Earth
System, and on which it is impossible to carry out any type of ownership or legal
abstraction for division, and therefore is truly a common good.
133
Lacking a physical existence but globally dispersed, the intangible elements of the
Earth System are, albeit on a temporary basis due to their permanent movement, within
the sovereign space and should be under the regime of an intangible natural common
heritage of all humankind / or World Heritage.
In this juxtaposition between space sovereign jurisdiction and the common system
should be a model in which the common intangible natural heritage/World Heritage
represents the functional unit of the Earth System that blends into the airspace and ocean
spaces of sovereignty but, by referring to a particular favourable structure of
biogeochemical elements, a different plan of sovereign powers arises, and may be
summarized as follows.
Planet:
a) Spatial division – Territorial division between autonomous sovereignty and its
delimitation in regard to all the remaining parts of sovereign jurisdictions (high
sea, seabed, Antarctica). This is the type of classic territorial division in relation
to the physical planet of 510 million km2, resulting from the existing geopolitical
map. This operation of dividing the res corporales includes also all airspace of
the sovereign States, the water column of the territorial seas and exclusive
economic zones.
b) Functional division – Refers to the distinction between tangible components of the
Earth System (res corporales), where the territorial division between States is
performed, and the intangible higher level (res incorporales) of the Earth System,
which refers to the elements that compose the biogeochemical structure of the
system, both working synergistically to keep the system in well-defined states.
The higher level is an emerging phenomenon resulting from the interaction and
integration of the geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere,
which forms the intangible Earth System. It is a single global system incapable of
any legal abstraction of division, simultaneously inside and outside of all States,
and therefore it is common to all humanity.
Within each state there exist ecological infrastructures of the living biosphere and
geophysical elements, which, through the Earth's history, were (and still are) the source
134
of the favourable state of the higher level. In this regard, ecosystems that are located
within the jurisdiction of states provide global ecological services that are functionally
common because they are dispersed globally.
Consequently, the benefits provided by ecological infrastructures inside sovereign
territories that contribute to the maintenance of this ecological safety space of humanity
are ecological services of global common interest. That is, as a result of the overlap of
the common intangible heritage and territorial sovereign spaces on a global scale, it would
be possible to include in the intangible heritage the benefits that ecosystems perform in
the state of the common system.
It is in this overlap between the intangible elements of the Earth System and the
sovereign rights exercised on the territories where the sources that contribute to the
maintenance of the living space are located, as well as the human infrastructures that use
this living space, that will definitively mark the character of this global res communis,
which mixes sovereign territories with a common system, with benefits and damage that
are shared globally.
In this context of interdependence between the interests of all humankind and state
interests, the proclaimed necessary evolutions of the concepts of CHM, CCH, World
Heritage global commons, sovereignty and international law will only be viable if they
carried out in a theoretical context that recognizes, reconciles and synthesizes through a
res communis the representation of this overlap of interests and the respective legal
regimes.
Among the existing models, the only model able to describe this integration and
overlap of two possible different legal regimes is the condominium. With the already
proposed legal separation between the territorial dimension of the planet and the
intangible elements of the Earth System, and through an accounting system to assess the
inputs and withdrawing of the common intangible heritage, it’s possible to bring
ecological reality and sovereignty rights closer together, building a global condominium
where the common interests of humankind are organized in symbiosis with state interests.
The application of this model on a global scale results in the recognition that the
international society is neither a community nor an arithmetic sum of sovereignties. It is
something complex that should elevate the law to the art of reconciling the extremes, of
making symbiotically dependent what was apparently incompatible.
Accordingly, we can say that the functional unit could be ensured through the internal
differentiation of legal regimes between the res corporales and the res incorporales of
135
the Earth System. However, despite a globally organized society having dealt with
ethical, philosophical and legal arguments, and whose cooperation today is already
extended to scientific knowledge, to be more than an idea, it will have to be
institutionalized and an accounting system found that matches the internal unity of the
system to an internal equity of human relations established through the common use of
the Earth System.
5.6. Symbiotic Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty has its origins in a matrix incompatibility with the unity
and interactive character of the Earth System. After discovering the conceptual
disintegration of sovereignty regarding where the concept is applied, old paradigms were
transformed into paradoxical uncertainties. Its existence is exercised in a contra-natura
tension, ranging from the reaffirmation of political authority and the dilemma of the
effective impossibility of sovereignty being free of the ecological interdependencies that
drive all states to almost the same level of interdependence, regardless of their
technological or economic development. The language of mutual and binding
interdependencies is hardly explained by international law. When a reality does not fit
into our abstractions, the solution is often the simple nomination of the impossibility of
understanding the problem. This strategy has a double purpose: it not only serves as the
way of explaining the inexplicable but also serves to create the illusion that the
designation of the "complex" is a synonym of its clarification.
Constructing legal abstractions (boundaries) in the lower level of integration of the
Earth System can lead one to believe that those mental abstractions are reality itself.
Although we see clouds, rivers and ocean currents crossing all borders, the lack of
knowledge about Earth System functioning, with all its interconnections and emerging
phenomena (which give it a characteristic of indivisible unity), was a key factor in the
construction of this process of mental divisibility.
The confusion between social abstractions and the systemic reality of the planet soon
made evident how difficult and serious the consequences of failing to harmonise social
representations with natural reality are. Making non-existent, for practical matters, all
reality that does not fit in the divisions that organize our perception of the world created
a structural difficulty in clearly explaining the contradictions, paradoxes, dilemmas,
interdependencies and improbabilities that are the origin of life.
136
These are strange and difficult realities not only for law to clarify in all of their
dimensions but also for natural sciences, which had to find new words and concepts for
the apparent intrinsic contradictions of relationships that apparently revealed opposites or
the opportunistic. These relationships of mutual benefit and dependence were called
symbiotic. In some cases, these relationships of interdependency imply such an intimate
interrelation among the organisms involved that it becomes mandatory, meaning that both
symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. Non-acceptance and non-
harmonisation of these dependencies correspond to mutual self-destruction.
In fact, the main feature of the interdependence is the inability to pursue any of the
interests in conflict without simultaneously pursuing, or at least serving partially, the
apparently opposite interest. Paradoxically, the consequence of the failure of
coordination is the deepening of the dependence. The global ecological relationships are
obligate, meaning that the inter-relationship between individual and collective interests
on any scale, even the global scale, are profoundly intimate and become materially
mandatory; that is, it becomes a non-derogable interdependence and humanly
unavailable. When this "law of nature" does not match a socially structured organization,
it becomes a real political impossibility. At the level of interstate relations, this
phenomenon manifests itself through the “sovereignty paradox” (Kaul 2013:27), which
demonstrates that states lose sovereignty through non-cooperation.
In this field of contradictions and complexities, it is essential to analyse the different
elements of sovereignty and their interrelationships. Considering that territory is a crucial
anchor for global or local analysis (Albert 2007), we also need to understand that this is
not its only dimension. We need to ask:
a) Which elements of this collective identity lead to the perspective of sacred
(absolute) sovereignty?
b) To what extent does this absolute, almost sacred character that underlies the pursuit
of individual interests of the state to the detriment of global collective interest, actually
depend on the present and future interest of humankind as a whole?
For Eduardo Lourenço (1999), each people just is, by conceiving and living itself as
destiny. Symbolically, it means as if it always existed, carrying with itself a promise of
eternal existence. It is this conviction that delivers to each people and culture (both being
inseparable) what we call identity.
137
This interesting and profound definition completely ignores the territorial dimension
of this identity, and without wishing to diminish its importance, it is certain that some
people exist without territories, and territories without people. Equally interesting is the
importance of the temporal dimension in the formation of this "conviction" that is
transformed into identity. The perception of ever having existed and a destiny or promise
of eternal existence put the projection of the past towards an unlimited future into the
centre of collective sentiment, offering people that which is called identity.
In this sense, territory is much more than a merely physical connotation. It is a
consequence of life in society, so that social relations are essentially projected towards a
concrete territory and unlimited time. It follows from the above that the sacred character
of physical territory of a nation-state comes from the operation in a specific space of this
symbolic dimension projected towards an eternal future.
If this symbolic projection of an eternal future is only possible in the context of
interdependence between all people and the mutual dependence of all people upon a
specific state of the Earth System, then the possibility of a people’s sovereignty will
require the creation of a common intangible living space where all people can develop
this “long-term” unlimited temporal projection. Without it, no sovereignty would make
sense.
Consequently, there will be two structural requirements for the emergence of any kind
of community:
• the need for a locus as the stability element for building a political organization;
• the need for a temporally unlimited projection of each people in a subjective
dimension.
Therefore, the subjective dimension of identity includes, in its genesis and substance,
the conviction of an existential possibility temporally extended to the successive chain of
generations yet unborn. So, we can say that the future healthiness of a certain territorial
space where the social formation is located is included in the preconditions of
sovereignty. The global nature of the "environmental good" transforms the scale of the
future state territory healthiness into the healthiness of the Earth System. Each social
formation designed in a particular territory is inevitably integrated into the whole human
family, current and future, and therefore has a mutual and global interdependence. This
fact transforms the absolute contraposition between autonomous collective interests of
138
humanity and the individual subjective interests of each state into a new context: the
benefit of each state lies primarily in the implementation of the common interest or, to
put into a narrower context, at least while the benefit of each state does not jeopardize the
complex balance that sustains what we call the common interest. And this relationship
between the territorial sovereignty and the healthiness of the global living space is
symbiotically necessary.
5.7. From Complex to Symbiotic
Although inextricably linked, sovereignty is not in essence only territory. It
simultaneously contains elements that open sovereignty to the global, to future
generations and to the common interest of all humankind.
The proof of this is that since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the first exception to the
principle that in international law there is no autonomous existence beyond state-centred
international relations was the common heritage of mankind.
The primary exception to this principle is the international commons. In these areas,
which include the deep international seabed, the Arctic, Antarctica, and outer space,
concerns over free passage outweighed the great Western powers’ territorial
ambitions and Grotius’s mare liberum triumphed. As a result, these regions were
gradually regulated to a greater or lesser extent by the Common Heritage of
Mankind (CHM) principle, in which theoretically all of humanity became the
sovereign over the international commons. (Shackelford 2008:2)
This exception to the principle of territorial division had its origin in a historical
cultural process based on the ethical perception that there is a common heritage of all
humanity corresponding to the fundamentals of life and to the renewal cycles of nature,
which also includes the temporally unlimited projection of each sovereign identity. We
can state that the CHM has always existed latently on a higher level to the plan put into
effect. That is, the foundations, the initial booster reason has always been broader than
simply looking for a legal framework for the remaining parts of the territorial divisions.
However, because the scientific tools to define and delimit its implementation were
absent, it was carried out in an amputated form and in an adverse context. But it is not
because it is not recognized in its true dimension that it ceased to exist and the
interdependencies allowed themselves to manifest.
139
Not to recognize and accept these dependencies is to make them paradoxical, complex
and deeper.
Humanity, as an integral component of the Earth System, is immersed in a necessary
symbiotic relationship with the Earth System. The sovereignty is the human manifestation
of the political organization of peoples exercised within the Earth System. The symbiotic
relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another
(ectosymbiosis) and where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis).
The exercise of a symbiotic relationship requires coordination of actions mutually
beneficial for the relationship but because they are mandatory, no coordination gives rise
to a mutual destruction.
Regardless of the system of internal self-organization with which humanity regulates,
organizes and coordinates the use and maintenance of the system in which it operates, it
is necessary to find a source of political legitimacy to build this process. It can only be
found in the existing political organization, within states’ political authority.
The figure of the 'international' represents sovereignty as inextricably linked to a
given territory. Yet 'international relations' must not be understood as the area of
politics among States, assuming that within States political authority rests on their
sovereignty. Rather, seen from the vantage point of political theory, the figure of
international relations is more: it does offer a powerful solution for a central
problem of the political, namely the problem to provide a place in which political
authority ultimately rests, yet at the same time it hides the fact that this 'ultimate'
place is in reality highly contingent. It is in this sense that the figure of international
relations allows to combine the political system's inside program of producing the
legitimacy of political authority with the political system's outside program which
insinuates that this political authority in need of permanent production and
reproduction is fixed against its environment (of other loci of political authority).
(Albert 2007:53)
This proposed evolution of sovereignty is therefore a natural consequence of an
attempt to achieve the CCH through the deterritorialisation of CHM/World Heritage.
Symbiotic sovereignty is the evolution that recognizes, reconciles and synthesizes the
overlap of the territorial and non-territorial elements of sovereignty that exist
symbiotically inside of all states in a single overarching governance condominium.
140
In this sense, the evolution of the theoretical concept of sovereignty turns out to be just
a reconstruction because the issues on which it could potentially be considered a retreat
in sovereignty actually had never been in the states’ sovereign jurisdiction, because no
state alone can address this issues. Sovereignty is transformed without losing its essence.
On the contrary, only by harmonising the interdependent relationship between all
sovereignties and the Earth System will be possible to perform the non-territorial element
of each sovereignty. We can argue that this common intangible living space is the
summation of all the unlimited temporal projections of all the sovereignties, in which
theoretically all humanity became sovereign over the intangible components of the Earth
System as the common natural intangible heritage of humankind.
The absence of the temporally infinite projection confines sovereignty to the territorial
element. And it would be the emptiness and the absence of any sense.
We could briefly review some features of symbiotic sovereignty:
1. Symbiotic sovereignty, as opposed to the absolute sovereignty [which incidentally
has never been more than an ideal] of Westphalia, integrates a knowledge that absolute
sovereignty did not have about the territory as a "live" system of relations flows of energy
and matter (including biologically organized matter).
2. Symbiotic sovereignty does not abolish territorial sovereignty but changes its nature
and its mode of exercise because it includes in its formula the non-territorial element,
temporally unlimited, common to all states, which will be the legal basis for building an
equivalence platform through the accounting of compensations and penalties.
3. Territorial sovereignty is maintained as part of the symbiotic sovereignty but under
two principles of conditioning that should be the subject of a binding international regime:
a) territory uses may not harm the global common Earth System software or, through it,
cause damage to the territories of the other symbiotic sovereign states; b) uses of the
territory may not limit the choices of future generations [intergenerational justice].
4. Territorial sovereignty, enriched with this restriction of use, is not a minor harm but
a good to be stimulated. It corresponds to a demonstration of the classical principle of
subsidiarity. In this light, the territorial sovereignty must be understood as the best way
for humanity to be able to inhabit the planet sustainably, making it a co-sovereignty. Only
through many sovereign "properties" (and not a mega-state that would eventually be
totalitarian) can we care for the Earth, moving from a predatory relation to a synergistic
relationship.
141
5. In fact, only in the context of this new territorial sovereignty, symbiotically
transformed, will be possible to find a basis in law for the construction of a system of
compensations and penalties, which is an incentive for states to produce positive
externalities (receiving rewards) and reduce the negative externalities (avoiding fines).
6. The institutional problem of public international law and constitutional law that
remains open is that of conferring to the United Nations not a part of world government
but a political, legal, scientific and financial status to allow it to be it the entity that
coordinates and administers this compensation system, that sets and installs policies that
stimulate the correction and redefinition of the self-regulatory mechanisms.
5.8. Earth System Stewardship
The structural evolution of the recognition by international law of this legal global
object would have cascading consequences, of which for the moment we highlight only
two:
1) The common interest of all present and future humanity (which is coincident with
the trans-temporal dimension of sovereignty) would exist via their representation in a
common natural intangible heritage;
2) From the moment the intangible Earth System belongs to someone (in this case it
belongs to all humankind as a res communis omnium), its use should be governed as a
trust by a specific law.
In other words, it would be possible to discern one of the possible objects of the so-
called global governance. The use of the word governance assumes that the object of the
act of managing/governing is identified and defined. This definition can either have a
territorial or a functional scope. In the absence of a defined object and a clear separation
of powers among the matters that must necessarily be governed globally and the
articulation/coordination with traditional powers of states, we need to admit the
unavoidable emergence of modalities of uncoordinated and unregulated use and the
impossibility of collective action.
Taking into account the relationship between appropriable sources and inappropriable
resources dispersed globally, and the fact of the living space being an emerging result
142
from the integration of the geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere,
we can state that the intangible favourable state of the Earth System is a space of
biogeochemical flows, whose maintenance of a certain structure of concentrations within
the limits corresponding to the stability period of the Holocene is vital for humanity.
Recognizing this safe space for humanity as a common natural intangible heritage of
humankind would allow capturing and accounting intangible flows (positive or negative
for the state of the common heritage) that all human actors emit in different amounts.
According to Carl Folke (2011:8), “A significant part of this challenge is to make the
work of the biosphere visible in society, in human actions and in financial and economic
transactions”.
Since most of the benefits provided by sources (ecosystems) are legally nonexistent
due to their global dispersion, only a comprehensive legal support can give visibility to
these positive flows. That is, due to the fact of these benefits being global, in order to stop
them being "externalities" for the economy and instead become visible to society, it is
necessary to first recognize their legal existence; only then may they be subject to
valuation. Since all people on a global scale enjoy these benefits, and many of them are
provided by sources (ecosystems) located in territories under sovereign jurisdiction, the
state in which the source of positive flows is located should be financially compensated.
A structural condition for reaching the civilized journey from explorers and exploiters
to guardians and managers is that the benefits achieved from the state of the Earth System
do not constitute losses for the societies that perform them. According to the primitive
accounting economic methods still prevailing, the value of a forest only enters into the
GDP and becomes visible in the financial and economic transactions of society the day
that forest is destroyed and turned into “raw material”.
Changing this formula and assigning an economic / financial value to the ecosystem
service requires a legal solution that recognizes the social existence (legal) of the benefit.
Only non-territorial legal support can uphold global benefits, and, as a consequence,
financial and economic visibility may be possible. The economy cannot consider as a
credit a benefit that legally does not exist.
It is no longer about simply controlling polluting emissions; it is necessary to build an
economy that is able to recover the natural capital that has been destroyed and create a
permanent system of sources renewal that assures the maintenance of the common
intangible space within the limits that humanity should not surpass. This system can only
be achieved on the scale required if the maintenance and reconstruction of the sources do
143
not constitute a cost or loss to the state exercising sovereignty over the territory where
that source is mainly located. Without an international ecological accounting system,
where individual contributions and obligations towards the maintenance of the intangible
common heritage are clearly defined, there will be no recovery and preservation. No one
would undertake such tasks when the cost of doing so is private but the benefits collective.
The shift from an economy of exploration of resources and sources to an economy of
production of common resources implies not only the existence of a common intangible
heritage on a global scale but also an accounting system of global biogeochemical flows
in a wider system of international compensation.
The introduction of benefits in the system of accountancy of ecological flows could
have a trigger effect in the sense that for the first time the production of common benefits
could have some individual (state) compensation.
When communities, regardless of their size, share the use of the same vital goods, they
are faced with the need to create a system of shared management. As such, it is essential
to compare the different benefits and the consumption by each of that common resource.
The common heritage is this intangible space, where accountability should be kept by an
international institution (UN) with functions of coordination; that is, if we have a system
of compensation between the different performances of each state on the state of the Earth
System, each state will try to have the best balance (difference between positive and
negative inputs) mainly through self-regulation. To achieve that goal, , the condominium
governance model, as a universal model optimized to manage global flows in a system of
international compensation, should be guided by the following principles:
No Winners, No Losers Principle
In a condominium governance model, the one who deserves to receive compensation
for the benefits provided to the common heritage is not profiting from it. It is just being
reimbursed for the improvements in the common good enjoyed by everyone. Those who
contribute to that compensation (through the condominium bodies) are ensuring the
healthiness of their own territory and protecting the core element of a temporally
unlimited projection of their own sovereignty. We live in a symbiotic mandatory
condition where we are all either winners or losers.
144
Common Intangible Living Space
We could not protect the emergence of a favourable state but we could protect the
biogeophysical conditions that assure the maintenance of the favourable state of the Earth
System.
The remaining ecological space, scientifically represented by the safe operating space
for humankind of planetary boundaries, which coincides with the living space of the CCH
concept and also with the non-territorial dimension of the CHM, is the fine-tuned version
of the res communis well-defined favourable state of the Earth System in light of
contemporary developments.
Global Condominium
Global neighbourhood relations are not relationships of power and domination but
ones resulting from the use of the same indivisible resources. In the Earth condominium,
all humanity, present and future, becomes co-sovereign over a well-defined favourable
state of the Earth System: it is a non-spatial CHM. The condominium is the only type of
res communis with the ability to represent the overlap of autonomous sovereignties over
a global common good; it is not restricted to the traditional global commons but spans
across areas subject to national jurisdiction. In a condominium model, the existence of (i)
an equity criteria to ensure the fair contributions of each co-sovereign and (ii) an
institutional arrangement with coordination functions for maintaining the functionality of
the common home of humanity are necessary.
Sources and Resources
The favourable conditions of the Holocene arose in an evolutionary fashion throughout
Earth's history and it is through this evolutionary process involving the living part of the
planet as well as the geophysical hardware that, for example, the relative concentrations
of gases remain relatively constant throughout time. In essence, it is the integration of the
geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere that forms the intangible
Earth System. Thereby the source of this favourable state is appropriable (the ecological
145
infrastructures are under the territorial jurisdiction of states) and the resource (the
favourable state) is inappropriable; that is, the resource disperses all over the planet and
its appropriation is physically impossible, as is also any legal abstraction of division.
Occupation of the Common Intangible Living Space
The over-use of the favourable state of the Earth System, although not corresponding
to a physical appropriation, can lead to the exhaustion of the intangible living space. With
climate change comes the discovery that a stable climate is not an inexhaustible factor,
that is, the incorporeal biogeophysical conditions that determine the state of the Earth
System have upper and lower limits and, therefore, are exhaustible. The occupation of
this resource is not realized through a physical appropriation but rather through a change
in the qualitative state of the incorporeal characteristics of the Earth System. This
occupation of the remaining living space is the result of a chemical change in the
qualitative state of the intangible space, and affects its common use.
a) Enlargement of the Common Intangible Living Space
The ecosystem services of global common interest are all the biogeophysical processes
performed by the ecosystems that contribute to the regulation of the stability of the Earth
System within the safe operating space. These services, although they originated in
ecosystems located in territories under the jurisdiction of sovereignty states, are spread
diffusely in the Earth System and enlarge the remaining living space where all nations
and citizens of the world operate.
b) Credits over the Common Intangible Heritage
The contribution of ecosystem services of global interest to the maintenance of the
favourable state of the Earth System should generate credit on behalf of the state that
exercises the sovereignty or sovereign rights over the source of this benefit, that is, the
ecosystem infrastructure that provided those ecosystem services.
146
c) Debits over the Common Intangible Heritage
The more chemical, biological and physical processes, resulting from human activity,
push the Earth System out of the safe operating space, the “less resource” (considering
the favourable and stable state of the Earth System as a resource) will be available to all
agents.
Because these processes contribute to the depreciation of the state of Earth System,
and correspond to an occupation of the intangible living space, they should generate a
debit on behalf of the state that exercises the sovereignty or sovereign rights over the
place where this activity occurs.
d) Standardize to Compare
It is necessary to build a common standard pattern that represents the positive and
negative flows of each country on the structure of the Earth System. Conceptually, this
new metric should be an aggregation of indicators that represents core processes that
regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth System. Only by placing the various
benefits in a common metric compatible with its consumption, can we express, to their
full extent, the relations to be harmonised. This new metric should be based on the best
available scientific knowledge.
e) Life Intangible Support Unit – LISU
The common standard pattern could be named LISU (Living Intangible Space Unit)
and should be an aggregation of PB indicators (“control variables”): stratosphere ozone
depletion, aerosol loading, climate change, ocean acidification, biogeochemical flows
(e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), novel entities, biosphere integrity, "land-system change" and
"freshwater use".
f) Ecobalance
The difference between the production of positive biogeochemical flows and the
emission of negative flows of each state and the impact of it on the maintenance of safe
operating space of humanity should be the basic equity criteria of contributions for the
Earth Condominium. The balance between the generation and consumption of LISU’s is
147
the ecobalance. It allows us to realize the status of the relationship of each state with the
common heritage, and a structural condition for confidence building.
g) Legal Foundations of Contributions and Compensations
The legal basis of the obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the Earth System’s
state is the fact that all states use within their sovereign territorial space a good that is
under a co-sovereignty legal regime.
The legal foundation of the right to be compensated for having contributed to
maintaining the intangible living space is that this favourable state of the Earth System is
under a co-sovereignty legal regime, and is also inside sovereign territorial spaces. All
the sovereignties will benefit from the enlargement and maintenance of the remaining
living space.
h) Agreed Value for each LISU
Using all the best available economic information about the cost of environmental
damage and the benefits of ecosystem services, we must construct monetary value for the
production and consumption of each LISU. This value must be sufficient to stimulate the
activity of producing positive flows for the common system, and not constitute a financial
loss for societies that develop those activities. It will be defined through a convention.
i) An Intermediate Space
Only by building a global system capable of crossing, in a comparable manner, the
positive and negative flows can we build an equivalence platform of fairness and
reciprocity, where all actors can see their interests safeguarded. In the current attempts to
organize the collective use of Earth System, positive flows to a favourable Earth System
are not yet part of the accounts.
It will be an intermediate space between State parties, where each one could
understand the contributions from all the others and define its own performance strategy
in relation to the common heritage, taking into account the prediction of other states’
behaviour.
148
j) Coordination Functions
With the definition of a new object of law and governance, a new or a reconverted
international organization (UN) should form. It should have the capacity to address the
Earth System as whole, tackle the sort of challenges we are facing, and assure
coordination tasks. Such functions should consist of receiving and redistributing the
contributions of each State party and gather the different interests then negotiate and
adopt the necessary resolutions. Failed coordination would result in high costs for all
parties.
k) The Positive Competition
All parties, depending on internal policies, might improve their balance relative to the
common heritage through the encouragement of environmental efficiency and the
preservation or restoration of ecosystems.
l) Ecological Trust Principle
The concept that best translates the idea of sustainable use of this common
intangible heritage by present generations with preservation for future generations in
mind is the concept of ecological trust. This trust is the juridical figure with the best
capacity to fit the virtual tri-polar relation established between different generations as an
object encumbered with the duty to keep within the limits of the favourable state of the
Holocene. The elements of trust are:
• Past generations (Trustors);
• Present generations (Trustees) – but we need a governance mechanism here.
For example, states acting within tight constraints via a revived trusteeship
council; also using own sovereign territory in a way that is consistent with
trustee obligations/responsibilities;
• Present and future generations (Beneficiaries) – current use rights and
inheritors, etc.
149
5.9. Final Remarks
As Vandana Shiva (1999) explains, “The ‘global’ in the dominant discourse is the
political space in which a particular dominant local seeks global control, and frees itself
of local, national and international restraints”. Therefore, Shiva continues, “the global
does not represent the universal human interest; (instead) it represents a particular local
and parochial interest which has been globalised through the scope of its reach”. Although
humans live in a global political space, they are fundamentally local beings. However,
they are also creatures who can create a new type of political space which is not global
or local but is a SHARED political space as an intangible locus, where humanity as a
whole, present and future, harmonise their different contributions to the common good
and ensure the necessity of each sovereignty for the unlimited timescale identity. The
recognition of one global legal support and an accountability of biogeochemical global
flows in a system of international compensation is a pre-structural-condition for a
dialogue between present living humans and the unborn.
Now we have the access to the central computer of Spaceship Earth, the condominium
it seems to be the conceptual legal framework for the Anthropocene, where we can get
inspired to organize our global neighbourhood. And the ecological neighbourhood is not
a relation of power dominance. It’s a relationship of symbiotic interdependence, where
the military or economic powers are not the only factors on the game. I believe that the
common natural intangible heritage of humankind is also the political space of the
Spaceship Earth Condominium, where we can decide how to conduct our own collective
action as neighbours.
150
Chapter 6
Earth Global Challenges Prize: A New Shape TITLE OF THE ENTRY: CONDOMINIUM: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE
COMMON HOME OF HUMANITY
AUTHOR: PAULO MAGALHÃES IN COLLABORATION WITH ALESSANDRO GALLI, WILL STEFFEN, KATE MEYER, LEENA YENGAR, ALEXANDRA ARAGÃO
6.1. ABSTRACT
Planetary Condominium: the legal framework for the Common Home of Humanity
One of the most crucial challenges of the Anthropocene is to reconcile the rigid
dichotomy between two key diverging approaches for the governance of the Commons:
on one side, the classic view of Hardin calling for division and private property rights as
the only way to avoid the “Tragedy of the Commons”; on the other, Ostrom’s suggestion
of coordinated actions for community-based management of common-pool goods and
resources.
Both views, at a global scale, have been derived from a society that is territorial, which
considers “the commons” to be that which is leftover from sovereignty or private
property. From a legal viewpoint, the Planet has so far been treated as a geographic
territory divided among States and the remaining territorial global commons. This over
simplified one-dimensional view leaves out the core expression of nature – the functional
Earth System as a single, complex life-support system. As such, we argue that the
favorable Holocene-like state of the Earth System – i.e., the set of interacting physical,
151
chemical, and biological global-scale cycles and energy fluxes that allow life on the planet
– is humanity’s ultimate global common that is an intangible and legally indivisible good,
which the science of the Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework clearly defines as the
“Safe Operating Space for humankind”.
The global and non-territorial nature of this intangible space coupled with the
territorial nature of sovereignty and private property require the views of Hardin and
Ostrom to coexist.
To achieve this, we propose up-scaling the legal model regulating human interactions
in condominiums to the global level: A condominium is an object with a unitary structure
and common functional systems, which belongs to various co-owners; each co-owner has
private or exclusive rights of ownership over determined fractions (e.g. apartments),
while sharing ownership over structural elements (e.g., foundation) and functional
systems (e.g., electricity). This is the only legal model that, using functional and spatial
legal divisions, allows different legal regimes to coexist within the same physical space.
We argue that the functional and spatial divisions found in a condominium are almost
perfectly similar to that of the territorial spaces of the Planet and the functional
indivisibility of the Earth System. Thus, for the functional and spatial divisions to co-
exist in a Planetary Condominium we propose a) recognizing the legal status of the
Holocene-like state of the Earth System as a Common Intangible Natural Heritage of
Humankind, b) using the Condominium framework to solve the overlap between this
heritage and State’s territorial jurisdictions, and c) using Ostrom’s design principles to
ensure the maintenance of this Heritage.
The key outcomes expected are:
1. Autonomous legal object of governance, complementary to sovereignties: the
Intangible Common Heritage of Humankind;
2. Institutional framework with the mandate to govern the management of the Earth
System and Global Catastrophic Risks (GCR);
3. Recognition of the intangible global biogeophysical cycles as part of our heritage,
allowing positive and negative global “externalities” to be accounted, internalized
and managed;
4. New Earth System Accounting Framework based on Planetary Quotas, that can
represent all scales, from individual and community, to regional or national;
152
5. Economic compensation scheme based on the balance between negative and
positive “externalities” and incentives to promote an economy that pro-actively
maintain the Earth System;
6. System for financing the management/protection of the Commons at the global
level;
7. The ultimate recognition and safeguarding of rights of future generations within the
international legal system.
Like in the Condominium model, the mission of keeping the common systems in a
functional state should be institutionalized. We propose the revival of the UN Trusteeship
Council (TC) to host this mission – working under the umbrella of the Security Council
as per the UN Charter – for four reasons: 1) It is one of the six main UN organs; 2) the
scope of its mandate is global; 3) its revival would not require drafting a new UN Charter;
4) its original mission (administer trust-territories) is analogous to that proposed here, i.e.,
trusteeship of non-territorial global commons (Humanity’s Safe Operating Space). The
revived “Trusteeship Council for the Earth System and the Global Commons” would be
the place where local actions get global visibility. TC would become the chief forum for
dealing with GCRs and other trans-national matters.
In this new role, half of TC would be composed of representatives from UN member-
states and the other half by specially qualified members of civil society nominated by
each Member-State. A permanent Scientific Commission, elected by the TC, would guide
the work of the TC by continuously monitoring State appropriation and preservation of
the Planetary Boundaries. Its composition would be interdisciplinary with experts
representing PBs, and appointments of Earth Science experts, ecological economists,
ecological lawyers, and experts in GCRs and social sciences.
The TC will deliberate on priorities for Global Commons and GCRs, such as:
strategies for the proactive management of each PB using systems of penalties and
compensations; rentals for using global commons; and, transaction fees to finance the
management of the Commons.
The initiatives first actions would be the conceptual breakthrough of recognizing
global commons spanning across multiple national jurisdictions, as a single legal object.
By capturing the most important bio-geophysical cycles in the new intangible legal
153
object, it would be possible to integrate Earth System dynamics within economics to
create the ideal economy where the provision of positive bio-geophysical processes is
synonymous with economic benefits.
The Planetary Condominium model details spatial, functional, and temporal
dimensions to addressing humanity’s defining challenge: to maintain a favorable state of
the Earth System for the continued success of humankind on this Planet.
The proposed model integrates and builds on several mechanisms that already exist,
to make tangible, the intangible concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind. This will
represent a significant evolution on humankind’s civilization journey, from explorers and
exploiters, to guardians and managers of our Common Home.
6.2. MODEL DESCRIPTION
6.2.1. The Planetary Condominium model: the conceptual framework
for a new global governance.
The Earth System is a single and deeply interconnected whole and needs to be
represented for its multi-dimensional qualities. Climate change, biodiversity loss, water
shortage, food security, pandemic diseases, and many other large-scale problems are,
directly or indirectly, the consequence of the lack of a comprehensive and interactively
organized governance system. As Kul Gautam (2016:263) best explains it, “Our
understanding of the Earth System today is vastly ahead of our organizational capacity to
[…] manage it” and thus “we need to make a quantum jump to a whole new mode of
managing the Earth System”.
The favorable Holocene-like state of the Earth System - today identifiable through the
Planetary Boundaries (PBs) framework, (Steffen et al. 2015; Rockström et al. 2009) - is
a global intangible good, which is impossible to legally divide and privatize. This “legal
indivisibility” has become one of the most daunting challenges for a globalized society
154
that regards the management of common goods as something that inevitably results in a
"tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin 1968), and which considers the regime of division,
private property rights and markets mechanisms as the sole way to solve this inevitable
tragedy. According to Hardin, if placed in a regime of free access to common goods and
resources, each individual will act independently in the pursuit of self-interest, motivated
by the goal of maximizing individual benefits, despite the fact that the collective result of
such individual action is the sub-optimal use of resources and overexploitation of the
commons that inturn impact everyone. This dominant underlying reasoning continues to
misrepresent the concept of the commons as an open-access regime, operating in a free-
for-all scenario where there are no boundaries to the usage of a common, no tools for
monitoring such use or rules for managing it, and no cohesive representation of the
community of users.
Elinor Ostrom (1999) pointed out some basic design principles for successful
commons’ management, and debunked the established paradigm of fatality: a properly
managed common has boundaries, rules, monitoring of usage, punishment of free-riders,
and social norms. Moreover, being a “common”, it requires the existence of a community
willing to act as a steward of its own Common Pool Resources (CPRs).
A functioning Earth System is indeed humanity’s CPRs: as such, what is at stake is
not “saving the planet” but rather maintaining the Earth System in that specific state – the
Holocene-like state – that is acknowledged to be favorable for humankind to thrive. Our
“home” relies on favorable, life-supporting intangible conditions and therefore a planet
outside such favorable state cannot serve as our "Common Home”.
As humans, we live simultaneously in two different types of communities of interests:
one at the level of national societies and the other at the global community level. But
unlike the national communities organized in territories, the global community of
humanity, is something that, having no personality, appears non-existent and therefore,
cannot be titled with any definitive rights or representation.
The “territory” of humanity is the planet, and this fact goes beyond the nation-state
based governance. Humanity hasn’t yet a locus from which it can base an organized
global stewardship community.
One of the main results of this incapacity is the basis of another fundamental question
of regulation and collective control: “How can a good that belongs to no one be subject
to a legal regime?” (Kiss 1982:122). In other words, is it possible to regulate the use of a
functioning Holocene-like state of the Earth System if this belongs to no one and doesn’t
155
have any legal recognition within human societies? How can we manage and protect
something that is intangible, global and not legally defined?
Until now, the legal non-existence of the intangible functional structure of the Earth
System has resulted in a model of social organization in which planetary biogeophysical
processes are "invisible" to the economic processes; they are considered “externalities”
to our societal organization, despite being key vital factors for humankind.
The biogeophysical structure of the Earth System throughout the Holocene epoch –
i.e., the set of interacting physical, chemical, and biological global-scale cycles and
energy fluxes that provide the conditions for humans to thrive on the planet (Oldfield, F.
& Steffen 2004), belongs intuitively to all humanity in common. This means that such an
Earth System structure cannot be owned, enclosed or appropriated by any State or entity.
“As a commons it can be used, but not owned, either as private or common property or
via the claim of sovereign rights” (Taylor 2016:117). These characteristics of belonging
to all but being owned by none do not necessarily prevent the Holocene-like state of the
Earth System from being used in an organized and regulated way and passed on, unaltered
or enhanced, to future generations.
The transmission of a value is the main purpose of the concept of heritage. The
principle of intergenerational equity and the existence of the ‘right’ of future generations
to receive and enjoy a functioning global ecological space confer an inheritable dimension
to the favorable state of the Earth System. As it belongs to all humankind - present and
future generations - as a common heritage, it should be governed in accordance with some
basic design principles of successful commons management, along the lines of the
innovative theories of Ostrom(1999).
However, the technical obstacle preventing the recognition of the favourable state of
the Earth System as a heritage - and thus the construction of an adequate management
system - is the fact that this “intangible natural good” cannot be defined by the traditional
understanding of the term “global commons”, as it seamlessly overlaps with man-made
jurisdictional boundaries – the geopolitical boundaries of nation states. This is a novel
situation for the current model of international law, which is unable to interpret and
reconcile the intangible functional system of the planet with the tangible sovereignty of
states.
Fortunately, the problem of reconciling seemingly opposing interests in a situation of
symbiotic interdependence is not completely new to legal sciences as an example can be
found in the legal model of a condominium. This model defines a situation in which an
156
object with a unitary structure and common functional systems belongs to various co-
owners, where each individual has private or exclusive rights of ownership over
determined fractions of the object, while at the same time co-owns the structure and
systems that constitute the object’s common functional elements.
On further analysis of this legal construction surrounding our daily life, we realize that
such a model offers boundless possibilities of management while challenging the
conventional paradigms of international law:
1) Condominiums represent not just a space-based division but also a legal division
based on structural functions: stability (e.g., foundations), systems of common use
(e.g., water, electricity, elevators) and functional elements (e.g., stairs, roof, some
of the windows). All elements that ensure the habitability and safety of the
building, and on which it is not possible to carry out any legal operation of division
or aproppriation - not even abstract – are under a legal co-ownership regime.
2) Within the spaces that are under the legal private property regime, there are
elements and systems that are also under the legal regime of co-ownership (e.g.,
some structural walls, water system). This means that by using different types of
legal division (functional and spatial) it is possible to ensure the coexistence of
different legal regimes, which are usually incompatible, within the same physical
space. This is the uniqueness of the condominium model.
3) If we add to this differentiated division a system of equitable contributions from
each co-owner to ensure a permanent management of the common systems and
structures, it is possible to harmonize the interdependence between the individual
property interests and common interests.
4) The existence of these two legal regimes in the same physical space do not
compete with each other, nor does common property limit the full power of private
property; conversely, the existence of a common property, superimposed on
private property, has the mandate of solely ensuring the maintenance and long-
term functionality of the systems and structures that all individual owners depend
on.
With a proper adaptation of scales, the legal model of the condominium thus provides
us with a solution for the legal organization of human societies at the scale of the planet.
157
The legal framework of the Common Home of Humanity is essentially that of a Planetary
Condominium.
In such a Planetary Condominium (Magalhães,P. 2007, 2016), the tangible
geographical planet – on which abstract legal divisions are possible (boundaries) and
where territorial sovereign powers are exercised – is coupled with the intangible Earth
System, which constitute the functional structure of the planet, and on which no legal
division - real or abstract - can be realized. Such a model would allow recognition, at the
global scale, of a set of interdependencies and relations similar to those existing among
neighbors who inhabit the same materially indivisible building, and who have an equal,
vital dependence on the proper functioning of the common functional elements.
In such a planetary condominium, the apparent limitation of sovereign powers presents
an opportunity to redefine the meaning and terms of sovereignty, and opens minds to
creative and innovative means of problem-solving with the inherent understanding that
the overall long-term functionality of the Earth System needs to be safeguarded.
6.2.2. Realizing the Planetary Condominium model
2.1) The Earth System as an autonomous legal object of governance.
When Arvid Pardo formulated the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) concept in
1967, he realized that the characteristics, principles and objectives of CHM did not fit
within the one-dimensional view of the planet as a sole geographic area. Conscious of
this, he sought to avoid the limitations of the territorial approach by proposing an ocean
space treaty that "attempted to show how the common heritage concept could be
implemented in the marine environment as a whole"(1975,67). Intuitively, the rationale
of the CHM concept incorporated the idea of interconnectedness and the impossibility for
the global commons to be solely confined outside national borders, and managed through
siloed governance models.
It is only recently that the understanding and measuring of non-territorial, functional
and intangible “global environment as an integrated whole” has been created by the
Planetary Boundaries (PBs) concept (Steffen et al. 2015; Rockström et al. 2009) .
158
Based on intrinsic “hard-wired” properties, the PBs define a combination of
parameters that together describe the state of the Earth System, thus enabling the
understanding of the role of interacting chemical, biological and physical processes in the
maintenance of a favourable state for humanity (i.e., the Holocene), as well as the role of
humankind in pushing the System out of its stable, desirable state.
Such a definition of the favourable state of the Earth System and its qualitative
boundaries is what allow us today to identify the object deserving legal protection – i.e.,
the Safe Operating Space – and in making it a new object of law.
The recognition of objects of intangible character are not new to legal sciences: the
recognition of intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO, the good will value of companies
in commercial law or intellectual property rights, are examples of “values” that, despite
being intangible, received legal recognition and a legal regime to regulate their protection
and use. An analogy in scale between these intangible objects of law and the intangible
Earth System is then crucial to understand and recognize the global and indivisible
functionality of the Earth System for our society. By envisioning a Planetary
Condominium, with tangible and intangible parts, we are thus defining a global
autonomous legal good, one that is complementary and can co-exist with the sovereign
powers of States.
The intangible favorable state of the Earth System corresponding to the geological
epoch of the Holocene has an outstanding value for humankind. It is the meta-condition
for all current life on the planet, and therefore should be represented appropriately in law.
As such, we present the recognition of the maintenance of a Holocene-like state of the
Earth System as a Common Intangible Natural Heritage of Humankind. Such a
conceptual breakthrough is the essential first step for the organization of the global
community that must be followed by the development of a new legal system for our
Planetary Condominium.
2.2) Structure, functioning and mandate of the planetary condominium governance
model.
To institutionalize this newly defined heritage, the mission of the Planetary
Condominium - to maintain the Earth System in a well-functioning state for the benefit
of all humanity and the future generations - should be tasked to an independent institution,
159
acting on behalf of all nations. The activities of such an institution should be limited to
the elements that fall under the regime of “common heritage”.
Currently, the only relevant institution with global membership and legitimacy to host
such a mission is the United Nations (Gautam 2016). In order to act upon the whole Earth
System rather than its individual components through multiple UN agencies, and taking
into full consideration the known difficulties in amending the UN Charter (Gautam 2016),
we propose instead, to revive the UN Trusteeship Council (TC) with a mandate to serve
the mission of humanity’s Common Heritage.
In the early 1990s, the TC was suspended as it had accomplished its mandate of
administering trust-territories. A first proposal for a revival of “UN Trusteeship of the
Global Commons”, advanced in 1994 by the Commission on Global Governance,
highlighted the need for international trusteeship to be exercised over the management of
the physical and territorial environment (i.e., the oceans beyond national jurisdiction,
outer space, and the related environment and life-support systems). This proposal was
rejected leaving the TC a dormant body which today exists solely on paper.
The increased urgency of major global challenges and the realization of the inadequacy
of current governance systems indicate it is time to start thinking beyond the paradigm of
sovereign nation-states and conventional market mechanisms to broader planetary
concerns. Building and expanding on the original idea of the Commission on Global
Governance, we thus propose reviving the TC as a trusteeship for the Earth System and
the global commons it represents.
A healthy and stable Earth System is the precursor to all the territorial global
commons, and a necessity to mitigate all environmental challenges and Global
Catastrophic Risks (GCRs). A revived ‘Trusteeship Council for the Earth System and the
Global Commons” would be the chief forum for dealing with the administration of
existing environmental treaties and the management of global biogeophysical cycles; it
would define priorities, compensations, incentives and quotas among all users of the
Common Heritage.
This will require a permanent capacity for the TC to take decisions, with expeditious
decision-making processes involving assessing, monitoring, supervising, allocating,
awarding and arbitrating. As such, the new TC should function as a true manager of global
biogeophysical cycles with a remit to regulate and sanction, with the goal of assuring
stable functionality of the system.
160
The TC would be supported by a permanent Scientific Commission, to be elected in a
TC meeting. Such a committee would guide the work of the TC by continuously
monitoring appropriation and preservation of the PBs by country. The composition of the
permanent Scientific Commission would be interdisciplinary with experts representing
PBs, and additional appointments of Earth Science experts, ecological economists,
ecological lawyers, and experts in GCRs and social sciences.
Our proposal is to put GCRs and Earth System management at the same priority level
as maintaining peace and security – the founding motives of the UN. GCR management
and mitigation are a question of security, and therefore are a strategic area upon which
the UN should intervene.
Alongside the support of the permanent Scientific Commission, the TC shall carry out
its mission in collaboration with, and under the umbrella of, the UN Security Council
(SC) - “in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations” (Article
24.1). Such cooperation and complementary functional competences between the TC and
the SC is already provided for by Article 83.1 of the UN Charter “All functions of the
United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the
trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment shall be exercised by the
Security Council” and Article 83.3 “The Security Council shall, subject to the provisions
of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself
of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United
Nations under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and
educational matters in the strategic areas.”
In accordance with Article 29, and to complement the role of the TC and the SC, we
propose that the Security Council establish a new organ – a Global Catastrophic Risks
Staff Committee (GCRSC) – (similar to the already-existing Military Staff Committee) –
to advise and assist the SC on all questions related to the implementation of concrete
actions aimed at avoiding or mitigating Global Catastrophic Risks, and special disasters
that could cause serious impacts in the state of the Earth System or could impact at least
10% of world populations.
The GCR Staff Committee shall consist of 11 members chosen between the TC and
SC. It is suggested that the GCRSC composition include 2 representatives from TC , 3
members from the permanent Scientific Commission and the SC to be represented by 6
Members to ensure equal representation of world geographies. The GCR Staff
161
Committee, with the authorization of the SC and after consultation with appropriate
regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
The legal recognition, through the mechanism of a convention, to protect the favorable
state of the Earth System as a Common Heritage of Mankind, calls for the development
of a system for its legal interpretation and application. The cornerstone of such a
convention would be fair and ethical representation and maintenance of the favorable
state of the Earth System. Such a mechanism, that finds precedence in the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Seas, would allow for the arbitration of disputed decisions
through an autonomous and specialized international Tribunal.
2.3) Coordination platform for the equitable management of the intangible global
commons
The most effective means to organize global relationships in the context of an
international system, where everyone has the power to influence and impact all others, is
through a system that aggregates and gives visibility to the different impacts produced by
everyone in all the different scales. Rephrasing Ostrom’s words [8], there is a need to
clearly define who the users of CPRs are, and who have the right to withdraw resource
units from such CPRs.
The Common Intangible Heritage will be the platform where the intangible positive
and negative global “externalities” are captured, internalized, accounted for, and where
the impacts of each individual, family, business, city, and nation State become visible.
The proposed global governance mechanism of this intangible heritage will give visibility
to all individual or collective actions and their intangible outcomes, whether positive or
negative; as such each effort will not disappear into a global legal vacuum, thus
empowering each individual to be a steward of the Planet.
This will incentivize decentralized decision-making, where tasks are to be allocated at
the lowest possible level as part of a larger nested polycentric governance system, while
at the same time, providing feedback on the performance.
Only by clearly accounting for the contributions of each entity will it be possible to
create a system of compensation, where equity and the social norm of mutual confidence
could flourish. Further, by addressing the human use and management of the Earth
System, we firmly believe that the proposed governance model could reduce the
environmental-related threats to political instability.
162
2.4) ESAF: the necessary accounting framework for enabling the implementation of
the Planetary Condominium
The mechanism for translating the Planetary Condominium’s legal framework into
action for implementation, requires the construction of a transdisciplinary accounting
system able to track and manage nation States’ use of the intangible Earth System. To
this end, we propose the introduction of the “Earth System Accounting Framework”
(ESAF). This requires transposing the PBs to a set of scalable indicators, applicable at
any scale of human activity to assign Planetary Quotas (PQs).
The PBs framework summarises the complex interactions of the Earth System
functioning in an intelligible way, and highlights the main trends in its state. However,
the main limitation of PBs is that the trespassing of global thresholds cannot be scaled
down to the sub-global level (e.g., nation States) nor compared to the specific human
activities that are causing it. For example, the PB threshold for climate change is the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, with clear difficulties in then assigning
acceptable CO2 concentrations to each nation State.
Once fully developed, the ESAF accounting system would be able to: 1) quantify the
extent to which socio-economic activities within nation States degrade or enhances the
“intangible favorable space” of the Earth System from a biophysical viewpoint and 2)
design an economic compensation scheme for the maintenance of such a favorable Earth
System state.
2.4.1) The Planetary Quotas
There are 8 Planetary Quotas: carbon, non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), land,
nitrogen, phosphorus, water, aerosols, and ozone depleting substances (ODPs). The
complexity of the Earth System and interrelatedness of the PBs is such that there is no
direct one-to-one conversion from the PBs to PQs. However, together, the PQs represent
the same safe-operating-space as the PBs and can be divided or allocated to any scale
from individual and community, to city, regional or national scales (Meyer & Newman,
upcoming 2018).
163
The basis of the ESAF is that every person has an equal right to our Common Heritage
and thus a right to benefit from an equal share of the life-supporting function of the Earth
System. Each nation State will thus be allocated one quota/threshold for each of the 8 PQ,
based on an equal per capita share. A consumption based environmental accounting
procedure composed of 8 indicators – similar in their rationale to Footprint-type of
indicators (Galli 2015) – will then be used to compare each nation State’s use of the global
commons against the calculated Quotas. The result will be a balance sheet of Earth
System credits and debits for each of the 8 PQs, indicating to what extent each nation
State deviates from the quota. For a climatic change PQ, for instance, a biophysical
threshold (in terms of tonnes of CO2 emitted per person) could be set, which should not
be exceeded to maintain warming below 1.5 degrees. A carbon-footprint-type indicator
would then be used to calculate the actual amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere
by the consumption activities of each nation State’s residents. This would then allow the
calculation of the deviation (± xx%) of the footprint value from the allocated Quota. A
similar approach could be deployed for each of the other PQs.
Overuse or underuse of the Earth System functionalities – in other words trespassing
or staying within each of the Quotas – will then correspond to a monetary fee that should
be either paid for or received by countries, depending on whether they contribute to the
maintenance of or drive perturbations to the Holocene-like state of the Earth System.
As explained in section 2.4.2, the monetary valuation of such overuse or underuse will
be estimated by the permanent Scientific Commission of the Trusteeship Council based
on the true ecological costs of overshoot per unit of each environmental currency (eg.
$/kgCO2) and the information provided by Earth System sicentists, taking into account
the scarcity and availability of each of the core drivers of PBs. Earth System credits will
likewise be compensated using these same rates, thus making the value of the Earth
System an integral component of our global economy.
It should finally be noted that, as the Earth System does not trade one environmental
impact for another – for example, no amount of safeguarded water would compensate for
excessive GHGs emission in preventing global warming – the ESAF does not envision
trade-offs among Quotas. Rather it is designed to drive human behaviour such that none
of the Quotas are exceeded, and therefore the Planetary Boundaries are adhered to.
We note that there is much controversy over historic contributions to global warming
and substantial literature on the ethics of different allocation procedures. However, the
ESAF differs from previous accounting systems in two fundamental ways. Firstly, the
164
PQs go well beyond the only GHGs emission, and the historic impacts of, for example,
land use, or phosphorous consumption, which have very different global distributions.
Secondly, its accounting principle is consumption-based rather than production-based.
Conventional carbon accounting, for instance, assign responsibilities to the producers,
and poorer nations, which often devote their production activities to export, thus
assigning relatively high impacts on the Earth Systems to them, compared to their quality
of life. In the consumption-based accounting system we propose, the embodied impacts
of goods and services will be carried over and associated with those nation States
consuming them.
2.4.2) Economic compensation scheme
In her book, Ostrom (1990) calls for the need of congruence between appropriation
and provision rules, indicating that any successful management of the commons requires
not only rules on the commons’ use or appropriation, but also a permanent system of
maintenance and restoration to ensure their long-term functionality.
As such, planetary stewardship implies not only the control and penalization of
negative impacts on the Earth System (e.g., the perturbation of bio-geophysical cycles),
but also the provision to acknowledge, reward and incentivize the maintenance or
improvement of the functional infrastructures that generate Earth System services.
In the current economic system, economic gains are realized – directly or indirectly –
through degradation and/or destruction, that is, in the consumption of natural capital. For
instance, the value of forests, vital for the maintenance of the favourable state of the Earth
System for our lives and for future generations, only become visible in the financial and
economic transactions of society when these forests are destroyed and turned into timber.
As Carl Folke (2011:8) states: "A significant part of this challenge is to make the work
of the biosphere visible in society, in human actions and in financial and economic
transactions”.
When the production of positive processes for maintaining the favourable state is
synonymous with economic loss, there can be no change in our behaviour to reduce the
negative impacts nor can there be any investment in realizing benefits to the common
Heritage. However, if we recognize the favourable state of the Holocene as a legal
autonomous good, we can capture in this intangible common heritage not only the
165
damages, but also the benefits that contribute to the maintenance of this favourable state.
By recognizing and capturing the most vital Earth System services, it becomes possible
to frame the economic processes in the context of global chemical, biological and physical
processes that support life and human activities, thus modifying economics to become
consistent with Earth System dynamics.
The possibility of using this intangible common heritage for making the work of the
Earth System visible in society, in human actions and in financial and economic
transactions implies a deep conceptual and structural shift in our economy, transforming
the current paradigm of individual benefits and collective costs to one in which individual
benefits are also gained through collective benefits. In a Planetary Condominium set-up,
in which Common Heritage and State sovereignty co-exist, the pursuit of individual
interests would become in tune with the interests of all humankind.
For this to be possible, our proposal is to use the accounting system described above
in section 2.4.1 as the biophysical basis for an economic compensation scheme in which
the overuse or underuse of the Earth System will correspond to an annual fee to be either
paid for or received by nation States, depending on whether they contribute to the
maintenance or the perturbation of the Holocene-like state of the Earth System.
Managing the flow of funds - assigning penalty payments and allocating funds to
countries with positive Earth System balances - would be a key mandate of the TC carried
out annually. We envision a small proportion of the incoming funds to be used to cover
administrative expenses of the TC, with the majority of the funds to be used in tackling
priority emergencies, paying back historical inequalities (in reimbursing those negatively
affected by the abuse and/or misuse of the commons) and to cover payments in the
compensation scheme to maintain (or enhance) key ecosystems and biomes – located
under or outside the jurisdiction of one or more States – whose services are necessary to
ensure the functionality of the Holocene-like state of the Earth System, and to invest in
transitioning to a sustainable future for all.
With such a system in place, each nation State shall be given full capacity to define its
own strategy for conserving or restoring its ecosystems, such as investing in technology
efficiency or other alternatives, or changing or reducing its use of the Earth System, with
the mandatory goal of achieving its own best balance in relation to the Common Heritage.
The inclusion of the positive environmental impacts in an accounting system could
trigger a positive competition for restoring the state of the Earth System. This would
encourage a major paradigm shift, from an economy rewarding natural resources’
166
extraction to an economy which fosters innovation, and where preservation and
production of natural resources and well-functioning ecosystems are economically
rewarded
6.2.3. Final Remarks:
Although Earth has a specific physical spatial attribute of 510,000 million hectares,
we are all globally connected through impacts that each of us produce on the intangible
biogeophysical functioning of the Earth System. This non-spatial interconnected Global
Community, has no territory in which it can base a legal existence or a cohesive
representation of its own interests. But attempts have been made to meet this challenge,
and valuable and inspiring examples do exist such as,
- The Antarctica Treaty System of 1959, that is considered by some a de facto
condominium (Glennon 1991) since it is not a sovereign territory (although
various nations claim parts of its territory as their own) and provides voting
authority for 28 nations to jointly govern the area. In all, 50 countries are part of
the “condominium” although some consider it a “quasi-condominium”
(Hemmings 2014).
- Article 136º of the Montego Bay Convention (UNCLOS) states, “The Area (Sea-
bed) and its resources are the common heritage of mankind”. This Convention
adopted a concept of humanity that transcends the notion of State, transferring its
point of reference to the peoples, regardless of their legal subordination to a State.
Humanity appears as a transcendent reality to the states and to the present
generations.
Similar to the findings of Nicholas Stern (2007) for the case of global warming, we
believe the cost of maintaining the Holocene-like state of the Earth System – especially
if shared by the global community – is likely to be lower than the future cost of today’s
inaction. We believe that the Planetary Condominium model is an opportunity for nation
States to realise and successfully manage its relationship and use of the Earth System.
The relationship that the Planetary Condominium model effectively operationalizes is
the environment (or rather a well-functioning, favorable state of the Earth System) that
167
supports society, which then builds the economy. Further, this model details spatial,
functional, as well as temporal dimensions to addressing humanity’s defining challenge,
which is to maintain a favourable state of the Earth System for the continued success of
humankind on this Planet.
Besides the legal conceptual evolution, another uniqueness of the Planetary
Condominium model is the novel accounting system combined with the renewal of
existing global management structures that lead to a very different set of motivations and
barriers to sub-national and State involvement. Consumption based accounting in
environmental currencies beyond carbon shifts the spread of environmental burdens and
opportunites. Not every environmental currency carries the historic components inherent
to carbon accounting. Thus, the proposed mechanism to operationalize the Planetary
Condominium does not carry the same ethical and political barriers that have been present
in past global action on climate change.
In conclusion, the model of activties and operations proposed by this Initiative
constitutes an integrated evolution of experiences in the international management of
territories and their extention to the management of a “virtual territory” whose existance,
despite being intangible, cannot be overlooked.
The approach of the proposed Initiative is more extensive and representative in
participation and remit. It integrates and builds on several mechanisms that already exist,
to make tangible, the intangible concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind. This
Initiative puts the Earth System and its stability in the spotlight, attempting to empower
it through a legal mandate, to ascertain the continued existance and prosperity of the
human civilization. It puts human relationship to the Earth System on centre stage to
devise a mechanism of management and maintenance. In being able to do so, the Initiative
hopes to opens new avenues and models of solutions to tackle the urgent and trans-
generational global challenges today’s world presents.
168
6.3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
6.3.1. Core Values
The mission of the proposed initiative is to safeguard the favorable state of the Earth
System as a common heritage of humankind across all sectors and societies, irrespective
of geo-political jurisdictions. Such a mission envisions,
ð the creation of a world in which all countries work together to preserve our
planet’s Safe Operating Space for humans and all living species.
ð For societies to be driven by a new economic model that prioritize the
preservation of nature, not its depletion.
ð the building of an inherent sense of respect and belonging to our Common
Home – as citizens of planet Earth, enriched by our individual cultural
diversities.
To this end our core values are rooted to ensure scientific rigor and evidence based
activity and response; assign a universally recognized legal existence to the Safe
Operating Space - the common intangible heritage for all humankind; practice socio-
cultural, economic and political diplomacy; and, create a platform that allows global
representation and fosters universal participation.
This would define the construction of an operational mechanism for the monitoring
and protection of the Safe Operating Space, that is resilient, allows socio-economic
equity, functions through active dialogues and is transparent, reliable and accountable.
6.3.2. Decision-making Capacity
In line with the core values, the decision making process will be based on scientific
evidence, with legislative clarity and expedited in a transparent, reliable and accountable
manner.
Operationally, decision-making involving assessing, monitoring, supervising,
allocating, awarding and arbitrating is proposed to be undertaken by the revived UN
169
Trusteeship Council for the Earth System and the Global Commons, with a mandate to
regulate and sanction, with the goal of assuring functionality of the governance model.
From the perspective of ensuring robust scientific and technical monitoring and
assessments, the Council’s activity and decision are to be supported by the Permanent
Scientific Commission comprised of Planetary Boundaries scientists, Earth System
scientists who study the whole system, ecological economists, ecological lawyers, experts
in Global Catastrophic Risk and social scientists. The main role of the Commission will
be to provide an overview of global effects. This includes establishing of the connection
between scientific information and assigned monetary values, assessments on cultural
acceptance, community rights and responsibilities, among other decision-making
parameters requiring trans-disciplinary input. The trans-disciplinary composition of the
Permanent Scientific Commission will be mandated to contextualize and frame economic
processes in the context of global chemical, biological and physical processes that support
life and human activities, integrating Earth System dynamics and economics - work that
no market-mechanism is currently able to do.
The Earth System Accounting Framework (ESAF) and the Planetary Quotas (PQ),
developed by this scientific commission would aim to offer rigorous administrative
accountability and transparency in support of the operational regulation and decision-
making processes. Complementary functional competencies and relationship between the
Trusteeship Council and the UN Security Council, stated through Articles 24.1, 83.1 and
83.3 of the UN Charter, lends an important degree of administrative surveillance, and
therefore further reliability and accountability of decisions and actions.
Further, to complement the roles of the Trusteeship Council and the Permanent
Scientific Commission, we propose that the Security Council establish a new organ – a
Global Catastrophic Risks Staff Committee (GCRSC) – (similar to the already-existing
Military Staff Committee) – to advise and assist the Security Council on all situations
related to the implementation of concrete actions aimed at avoiding or mitigating Global
Catastrophic Risks and other disasters that could cause serious impacts to the state of the
Earth System or could impact at least 10% of world populations. This would further
bolster prompt action and implementation related decision-making in addressing these
vital cases.
170
6.3.3. Effectiveness
Factoring in the sensitivity of the decision-making process and conscious of the fact
that only structural shifts will lead to systemic effects, this initiative proposes an
incentives-based system for the production of global public goods, rather than being an
exclusive coercive legal system of injunctions, whose legitimacy would always be
questionable and that no sovereign State will accept.
In this sense, the effectiveness of the proposed initiative draws from:
ð the communication of its scientific studies and socio-economic
management structure that will demonstrate and actively work towards
driving the perception that prioritizing an ongoing, resilient and well-
functioning Earth System does not result in economic loss.
ð The fact that even though PQs cannot be translated directly back to the PBs
(as they are also global limits in different indicators that allow the safe-
operating-space to be divided and operationalized), the PB method would
still be used to assess the global status of Earth System functioning relative
to a Holocene-like state. The point here is that the true ecological costs of
overshoot per unit of each environmental currency (e.g. $/kgCO2) can be
determined. In this way, if everyone participated, the system would
generate enough money to cover the costs of mitigation/adaptation – and
that it would be spent for this purpose. This would remove one of the
barriers that has prevented some from signing global treaties for limiting
carbon emissions – i.e. the idea that the money contributed may be
“misused”.
ð the economic element of the ESAF / Planetary Condominium model, that
proposes a financing system that will not only favor investments in natural
capital and the preservation of critical Earth System functions, but also
invest to fight extreme poverty by making sure that individual basic needs
are met. The accounting system will address inequality between poor and
rich, north and south, as well as rural and urban people. This could also
contribute towards dealing with the root causes of politically-motivated
unrest and in extreme cases, violence.
171
ð its programmatic approach, where we choose to organize management of
the initiative under the auspices of the United Nations as the sole, truly
global and trans-disciplinary institution relevant and respected by all its
member nations. We propose to channel the work of the initiative through
the close and complementary relations between the TC and Security
Council (SC) already foreseen in UN Charter, and propose the creation of
a Global Catastrophic Risks Staff Committee by the SC to ensure the
possibility of prompt and effective action by the United Nations. Thereby,
we introduce the Earth System management and GCRs at the same level of
importance as the maintenance of peace and security, which are the
founding motives of the UN.
Further, providing visibility to all individual or collective intangible outcomes for each
action, (positive or negative) would empower each individual to become a steward of the
Planet. This will incentivize decentralized decision-making where tasks are to be
allocated at the lowest possible level as part of a larger nested polycentric governance
system, while at the same time, providing feedback on the efficiency and efficacy of its
performance.
6.3.4. Resources and Financing
Through its work over the past 10 years the initiative already supports a robust and
growing team of
ð Scientific and social science expertise
ð Advisory board of the initiative in its current state
ð Researchers and academic personnel
ð Material resource
In its current operations of building the core features of the initiative, grants and funds
have been sourced from Portuguese Governmental authorities and through commercial
consulting partnership contracts.
172
On the international scale, operations would be supported through the inflow of
penalty costs and environmental levies that will be charged, once the full penalty,
compensation and stewardship schemes are in place, implemented and regulated. This is
to be executed under the following mechanism:
ð Comparing each nation State’s use of the Common Heritage against the
calculated Quotas. The result will be a balance sheet of Earth System
credits and debits for each of the 8 PQs, indicating to what extent each
nation State deviates from its quota. Overuse or underuse of the Earth
System functionalities – in other words trespassing or staying within each
of the Quotas – will then correspond to a monetary fee that should be either
paid for or received by countries, depending on whether they contribute to
the maintenance or perturbation of the Holocene-like state of the Earth
System.
ð There are other possibilities for financing the Planetary Condominium,
such as the charging of a modest rental or transaction fees that could
mobilize significant funds. These could include charges on: military
spending and arms exports, foreign exchange transactions, international
trade, airline tickets, maritime freight, ocean fishing, sea-bed mining,
satellite parking spaces, use of electromagnetic spectrum and the internet.
ð Knowing that humans have already altered the Holocene-like state of the
Earth System, entered the Anthropocene, transgressed 4 of the 9 PBs, and
overshot all footprint metrics related to our planetary resources and sinks,
it is clear that the sum shall begin with costing penalties and
compensations. In an ideal world, the success of our initiative will be
measured by the reduction of penalties and compensations and a rise in the
stewardship awards, complemented by observations and models suggesting
restored Earth System stability.
The basis of the ESAF is that every person has an equal right to our Common Heritage
and thus a right to benefit from an equal share of the life-supporting function of the Earth
System. Through the Economic compensation scheme, fairness and equity could be
achieved in balancing the responsibility between the biggest users of the Earth System
and those that provide common benefits.
173
6.3.5.Trust and Insight
The functions that enhance trust in the proposed initiative and its mode of operations
are:
ð the inability of the multiple siloed mechanisms that attempt to answer
globally pervasive challenges
ð the fact that the initiative will provide a legal mandate to the representation
of the Earth System in its favorable state in order to represent the interest
of all humankind in the present and future
ð the multiple-levels of accountability – the science, the economics, law and
governance structure.
ð Operating through the universally recognized body for peace and security-
the United Nations.
ð Open access to the science, the practice of the legal framework and all the
information that constitutes the basis of all decisions in this initiative and
its governance
Most importantly, only by clearly accounting for the contributions of each entity will
it be possible to create a system of compensation, where equity and the social norm of
mutual confidence could flourish.
The initiative highlights the valuable insight, based on observations in science and in
the natural disasters in the world we see today, that intangible systems are equally
important and worth recognizing and protecting for humankind to thrive.
Bringing the basis of human survival and enterprise – the favorable, stable Earth
System- to the forefront is one of the most profound insights of this initiative. This insight
has no economic worth of its own but when it becomes the core concern of socio-
economic decisions, it would play a pivotal role in resolving and finding solutions to the
most complex challenges humankind is faced with today and will face in the future.
The Law of the High Seas and the Sea Bed conventions that exist to protect their
respective domains have proven that it is possible to build on the effectiveness that these
174
frameworks of governance have shown to expand the mandate of the Earth System as a
whole.
6.3.6. Flexibility
The feedback mechanisms of the initiative’s model, just as the dynamic nature of the
Earth System itself, creates flexibility in incorporating new findings and perspectives into
the decision-making system. The initiative has developed its operational model based on
the three principles that Dietz et al. [22] listed in 2003 stated as being particularly relevant
for problems at larger scales:
ð well-structured dialog involving scientists, resource users and interested
public;
ð institutional arrangements must be complex, redundant and nested in many
layers;
ð governance should imply mixtures of institutional types.
6.3.7. Protection against the abuse of power
The initiative maintains the stability of the favorable Earth System as its core
objective. The construction of the regulatory mechanisms and the governance systems
are hence focused on this core objective and protected as highlighted below:
ð Just as the Earth System does not trade one environmental impact for
another the ESAF does not allow trade-offs among Quotas. Rather it is
designed to drive human behavior such that none of the Quotas are
exceeded, and therefore the Planetary Boundaries are respected.
ð The initiative proposes to be embedded within the UN, as the only existing
institution with the most universal membership and legitimacy, with a
General Assembly where 193 members-States have a seat, with a majority
of democratic procedures in almost all of its organs, with an internal
175
separation of powers and competences in different organs, of which one is
the International Court of Justice.
6.3.8. Accountability
The Common Intangible Heritage will be the platform where the intangible positive
and negative global “externalities” are captured, internalized, accounted for, and where
the impacts of each individual, family, business, city, and nation State become visible.
The initiative has installed an accounting system for its scientific work on Earth System
protection, its framework of economic activity within the initiative and the governance
structure as highlighted below:
ð The Earth System does not trade one environmental impact for another –
for example, no amount of safeguarded water would compensate for
excessive GHGs emission in preventing global warming – the ESAF will
not allow trade-offs among Quotas.
ð The ESAF system is developed to compare each nation State’s use of the
global commons against the calculated Quotas. The result will be a balance
sheet of Earth System credits and debits for each of the 8 PQs, indicating
to what extent each nation State deviate from the quota.
ð The monetary valuation of such overuse or underuse will be estimated by
the permanent Scientific Commission of the Trusteeship Council based on
the natural capital valuation literature and the information provided by
Earth System scientists, taking into account the scarcity and availability of
each of the core drivers of PBs. Earth System credits will likewise be
compensated using these same rates, thus making the valuation of the Earth
System a transparent process.
ð Open access to the databases, scientific material and decision-making
criteria allow further accountability of the processes.
ð The multi-layered organization, embedded in the most unbiased of global
organizations- the United Nations - and the trans-disciplinary team that
176
executes the governance system of the initiative is able to self-check and
regulate the decision-making process to be relevant, impartial,
representative, fair as well as contestable.
ð Just as the international Courts have an international tribunal for the law of
the Sea, the initiative shall work towards the development of an Earth
System Convention that is protected by a similar jurisdictional system.
177
Chapter 7
SOS TREATY – Safe Operating Space Treaty Draft on the
COVENANT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF EARTH SYSTEM USE. “SAFE OPERATING SPACE OF HUMANKIND”
AS A NATURAL INTANGIBLE COMMON HERITAGE OF HUMANKIND
7.1. PREAMBLE
Considering that:
• All countries are exposed to environmental impacts, positive and/or negative,
from other countries. Given that knowledge of this reality is still recent and the
Earth System continues to be used in a non-regulated manner, humanity has now
reached a point where it is characterized its own life-support system.
• The main structural motive at the origin of this unregulated use is the fact that the
Earth System does not exist from a legal perspective, and is therefore being used
as a no-man’s land (res nullius).
• The global commons were always (and continue to be) understood as the mere
remaining geographical spaces of political division between states. The ecological
goods that exist in and outside all sovereignties simultaneously currently find no
legal autonomous existence within the current legal framework. Humanity, as a
whole, both in the present and the future, corresponds in the same way to this
juridical inexistence.
178
• The global, diffuse and intangible dimension of a vital good such as a stable
climate, effects from the damage to which are sustained over several generations,
transform this traditional approach into an ecological nonsense. Today’s doctrine
recognizes that international law contains a structural theoretical error in its
approach towards global ecological goods and their intergenerational dimension.
• Recent developments in Earth System science, which define and describe the
Earth System as a whole, provide us with insights into the nature and limits of the
Holocene epoch (the last 11,700 years) – the only state of the Earth System that
we know with certainty can support advanced human civilizations.
• It is now possible to understand the chemical, biological and physical processes
of the Earth System that are conducive to maintaining a favourable state for
humanity (i.e., the Holocene) and those that act to push the Earth System out of a
stable, desirable state.
• A tipping point is when a system fundamentally changes structure and function,
tips over and settles into a new stable state. And the prerequisite to do so is that a
feedback mechanism, which keeps the system tightly in one state, changes
direction.
• This favourable state, which arose in an evolutionary fashion throughout Earth’s
history, is an “intangible natural limited resource” on Earth. In essence, it is the
integration of the geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere
that forms the intangible Earth System, a single global system incompatible with
any legal abstraction of division. With the shift of the biogeophysical structure,
the system changes fundamentally from one stable and favourable state to another
stable state.
179
• With the growing understanding of the Earth System and the recent possibility of
measuring its state through the definition of planetary boundaries – (Rockström
et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015) – we now have a scientific basis upon which to
define the Safe Operating Space of the Earth System.
• With the ability to quantify and define the desirable state of the Earth System,
we’ve made a giant step in order to solve the legal vacuum created by the
indeterminate and vague concepts that have characterized national or international
legal texts over the last decades. Expressions such as the common concern of
humankind, the common interest of humankind, the life-support system,
intergenerational solidarity, ecological integrity and sustainability now have a
set of indicators and numbers that encircle and delimitate what is global
sustainability.
• This new knowledge can be instrumental in the architecture of new solutions that
allow us to overcome the existing dysfunctionality between ecological reality and
the current legal constructions.
• Throughout history, newly discovered spaces became objects of legal definition.
The knowledge of this intangible and non-territorial Safe Operating Space of the
Earth System obliges our social institutions to respond to the most recent scientific
evolutions and build new representations capable of going beyond the reductionist
legal, physical or biological approach that represents nature merely as a
geographically delimited space or as a collection of biological species that can
benefit from legal protection.
• To achieve this fundamental shift, we need to be capable of representing the Earth
System as a whole in international law. To do this in a legal sense, we need to
180
identify the legal status of the Earth System. “How can a good that belongs to no
one be subject to a legal regime? (Kiss 1982:122)?
• In this sense, the first step to structurally organizing this interdependence is to
achieve a clear delimitation of the common good/resource to be protected (both
inside and outside of all sovereignty) and upon which we all depend. Only then
we have the structural conditions to be possible organize its use in a sustainable
way.
• To make this evolution real, every benefit and/or damage made to the Earth
System can no longer disappear into a “legal black hole”. Economics calls those
benefits and/or damages “positive and negative externalities” but they cannot be
“external” to our societies.
• If we are able to identify and measure the core global drivers that define the state
of the Earth System, we have the necessary conditions to start to manage its use.
Once it is measured, it can be managed and operationalized.
• In the theory of international public domain, it is possible to attribute certain goods
to interests of the community without changing the rules of jurisdiction, that is,
without subtracting these goods from the sovereignty of territorial states or from
the property of other entities.
• Today’s institutional architecture does not operate as a governance system capable
of addressing global challenges and rising above the fragmentation, segmentation
and incoherence that result in today’s ineffective institutions.
181
• Before undertaking a practical reform, we need a new approach able to close the
gap between the theory that underlies the organization of international institutions
and the reality of Earth System dynamics.
• If we are able to create a new legal fiction capable of addressing the intangible
quality and the non-territorial dimension of the Earth System state, which has a
dialectical relationship with tangible territories of states but is not confined to any
state (and therefore cannot be considered a subtraction to a sovereign power of a
state), we can create a legal object distinguishable from every sovereignty.
• The actual legal inexistence leads to the absence of a scheme of contributions or
responsibilities to ensure both the maintenance and necessary improvements for a
well-functioning Earth System, and leads to the lack of an administrator (or an
institution with similar functions) in charge of ensuring its ongoing maintenance
in a sustainable way.
• A legal model for the Anthropocene requires a regulation responsible for ensuring
the protection and promotion of common interests through the construction of a
new way that represents the interests of all humankind, both in the present and the
future.
Mindful of the will of the peoples, set out solemnly in the Charter of the United Nations,
to safeguard the values and principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and all other relevant instruments of international law,
Concerned by the fate of future generations in the face of the vital challenges of this
century,
Conscious that, at this point in history, the very existence of humankind and its
environment are threatened,
182
Recalling the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations
towards Future Generations from 21 October to 12 November 1997,
Bearing in mind that the fate of future generations depends to a great extent on decisions
and actions taken today, and that present-day problems, including poverty, technological
and material underdevelopment, unemployment, exclusion, discrimination and threats to
the environment must be solved in the interests of both present and future generations,
Convinced that there is a moral obligation to formulate behavioural guidelines for the
present generations within a broad, future-oriented perspective,
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need to define and develop the provisions of
international instruments in relation to the Earth System use… have agreed on the
following:
GENERAL DISPOSITIONS
7.2. PART 1 – OBJECTIVE
ARTICLE 1
Objective
This Draft Covenant provides a legal framework with the aim of transforming our common inhabitation of the planet from a system of exploitation to a system of stewardship of the Earth System through a process of self-organization to manage its use.
183
7.3. PART 2 – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Conscious that the global and deeply interconnected functioning of the Earth System requires new organizational solutions, all parties shall cooperate in a global partnership, looking for new pathways to achieve the objective of this covenant by the following fundamental principles:
ARTICLE 2
Earth System The Earth System consists of the interacting physical, chemical and biological processes that cycle materials and energy throughout the system at the planetary level. In essence, it is the integration of the geophysical properties of the planet with the living biosphere that forms the intangible Earth System, a single global system incapable of any legal abstraction of division. A key process of the Earth System is self-regulation, which consists of feedback loops formed by component parts of the system (both inside and outside of all sovereignties), which work synergistically to keep the system within well-defined states. Humans and our activities are an integral part of the Earth System.
ARTICLE 3
The Planet and the Earth System
Throughout the history of planet Earth, on a geological timescale, the Earth System has always existed in a process of permanent transformation. Recent scientific developments defined and described the Earth System as a whole, and provided a well-defined biogeophysical structure of the Holocene epoch, the only state of the Earth System that we know for certain can support advanced human civilizations. The recognition that the planet Earth and the Earth System’s state are two distinct concepts is a structural prerequisite to enable a global legal approach.
ARTICLE 4
The Qualitative State of the Earth System The Earth System is a single and complex system that exists within the boundaries of well-defined states. It’s now possible to understand the chemical, biological and physical
184
processes of the Earth System that are conducive to maintaining a favourable state for humanity (i.e., the Holocene) and those that act to push the Earth System out of a stable, desirable state.
ARTICLE 5
Planetary Boundaries The Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework provides a scientific basis upon which it is possible to define the features of the Safe Operating Zone for humankind, strongly oriented towards maintaining a relatively stable state of the Earth System, one that is very similar to that of the past 12,000 years (Holocene). From a human perspective, PBs are biogeophysical limits that define the state of the Earth System, that exist through the identification of control variables and tipping points from which irreversible abrupt global changes may occur.
ARTICLE 6
A Limited Resource
The favourable state of the Earth System arose in an evolutionary process involving the interactions between the living biosphere as well as the geophysical part. Given that there are human activities that cause chemical, biological and physical alterations that are conducive to pushing the Earth System out of this desirable state, we can consider that this “favourable state” as a vital good exhaustible through its use. In this sense it is “an intangible natural limited resource” on Earth.
ARTICLE 7
The Source/Resource Relation From a historical perspective, the favourable state of the Earth System is the result of interactions between the living biosphere and the geophysical properties, that is, in this sense the ecological infrastructures of biosphere are sources that contributed and still contribute to maintain this resource.
ARTICLE 8
Remaining Ecological Space on Earth
From the moment we are aware that this favourable biogeophysical structure of the Earth System is exhaustible, internal relations are equally reconfigured among all users of that
185
resource. We need rules in order to organize the relations established around the use of the remaining ecological space for human development, which, by being exhaustible, cannot be used in a free-access regime.
ARTICLE 9
Legal Indivisibility The Earth System as a single and integrated system cannot be included within any already existing legal convention because it is impossible to divide it conceptually, materially, or through any legal abstraction. Therefore it must be considered a common resource.
ARTICLE 10
A Common Intangible Space Once the use of this limited vital good is not exclusive to any “user” and no “user” can deny access to any other, in global terms we are facing a situation where all people are exposed to the acts of others, creating an interdependence of benefits and harms shared on a global scale. In this sense its use requires organization amongst users that defines privileges and responsibilities.
ARTICLE 11
A Primordial Resource
The exceptional stable conditions of the Holocene period, unique in the history of the Earth, are a gift that nature has produced for the use of all humanity, today and tomorrow. It’s something that due to its indispensable value to life, belongs to all members of the whole human race and represents more than the sum of individual interests of states. It is a supreme value and primordial resource.
ARTICLE 12
The Patrimonial Dimension The supreme vital value for humanity, the principle of intergenerational equity and the existence of the ‘right’ of future generations to receive and enjoy an ecological space that supports their survival confers a patrimonial dimension to the Earth System state within the limits of a Safe Operation Space, since the transmission of a value is the main purpose of the concept of heritage.
186
ARTICLE 13
Common Home of Humanity A planet in an undesirable state, which is not able to provide for human ecological needs, will not serve as our common home. In this sense, the common home of humanity, rather than the tangible geographic area of 510 million Km2 of the planet, is an intangible well-defined state of the Earth System, the “Safe Operating Space” (i.e., a Holocene-like state of the Earth System).
ARTICLE 14
Intangible Space of Interconnection and Innovation
The evolution of the international community added to recent scientific developments on Earth Sciences and the need to address a growing interconnection on global governance justify the expansion of the restricted legal contours of the common heritage of humankind or the World Heritage to new situations where the survival of the human species and life on the planet are at stake.
a) The doctrine considered the common heritage of mankind regime flexible enough to adapt to the emerging challenges the discovery of new resources and values, such as scientific research;
b) It is of notable interest to understand that all the substitutes and derived concepts gravitating around the common heritage of mankind seek to plant a seed for the development of a normative framework as to offer alternatives to govern the global common goods, and not only the areas and resources beyond jurisdictions;
c) World Heritage has already done the course from Material Cultural Heritage to Intangible Cultural Heritage. It seems that this same course can now be reproduced in relation to Natural Heritage;
d) The protection of the Earth System as a World Heritage complies with the functions of UNESCO as a “laboratory of ideas, standard-setter, clearing house, capacity-builder in Member States in UNESCO’s fields of competence, and catalyst for international cooperation”.
187
7.4. PART 3 - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE INTANGIBLE
NATURAL SPACE
ARTICLE 15
Common Heritage of Humankind and World Heritage Evolution The Earth System within the limits of a Holocene-like state is a vital primordial resource that belongs to all humanity, present and future. By this fact it exists simultaneously inside and outside all sovereignties, and demands one theoretical evolution on the Common Heritage of Humankind and World Heritage concepts, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Treaty.
ARTICLE 16
Safe Operating Space for Humankind The human way to represent this primordial resource is throughout a set of indicators within the larger system that regulates the stability of the Earth System. These quantitative interconnected boundary levels create the safe operating space for humankind, which allow for the delimitation and measurement of a non-territorial common heritage of all humankind. These indicators should also function as a standard reference to guide the future management of the Earth System use.
ARTICLE 17
Just and Fair Operating Space for Humankind Planetary boundaries are not only a safe space in biophysical terms but could also be used to achieve equity, fairness, and a just distribution of the remaining ecological space on Earth.
ARTICLE 18
Governance System The planetary boundaries are a truly integrated analysis where all boundaries are interconnected, where a critical transition of one boundary could have feedback
188
consequences on the entire system. Therefore, this safe space represents more than the sum of the different indicators, and demands governance based on a systemic approach.
ARTICLE 19
Equity State parties have the right to use the Earth System without discrimination of any kind on the basis of equality, equity and in accordance with international law and the terms of this Treaty.
ARTICLE 20
Accountancy The common heritage will be this intangible space where accountability should be carried out by an international institution (UN) with coordinating functions, that is, if we have a system of compensation between the different performances of each state on the Earth System state, each state will try to have the best balance (difference between positive and negative inputs), mainly through self-regulation.
ARTICLE 21
Common Standard Pattern
For collective action to become possible, some structural conditions are required. One of them is the ability to measure and compare each action in regard to the maintenance of the favourable state of the Earth System. If equality consists of treating equally what is equal and inequality what is unequal, knowing what is equal and what is unequal presupposes a fixed point, a standard pattern that only law can offer.
ARTICLE 22
International Institutionalization
Taking into account the characteristic of non-exclusion of access to this common vital resource on a global scale, the application of fundamental principles of the common heritage of humankind to a well-defined state of the Earth System implies that its use should be managed in an international and institutionalized form.
189
ARTICLE 23
International Regime State parties adhering to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the use of our primordial natural resource composed by a relatively stable state of the Earth System, one that is very similar to that of the past 12,000 years. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with Article 22 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 24
Main Purposes of the International Regime
The main purposes of the international regime to be established shall include:
(a) Ecosystem Services of Global Interest The Ecosystem Services of Global Common Interest are all the biogeophysical processes performed by the ecosystems that contribute to regulating the stability of the Earth System within the safe operating space. These services, although originated in ecosystems located in territories under the jurisdiction of sovereignty states, are spread diffusely in the Earth System, providing benefits to all humankind, thus they are inevitably global and a common interest.
(b) Credits over the Common Intangible Heritage Ecosystem Services of Global Interest are considered all the benefits of the Earth System provided by the biosphere. Because they contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Earth System within the safe operating space, they generate a credit on behalf of the state that exercises sovereignty or sovereign rights over the ecosystem infrastructure that provided those ecosystems services.
(c) Debits over the Common Intangible Heritage The chemical, biological and physical processes resulting from human activity that are conducive to pushing the Earth System out of the safe operating space generate a debit on behalf of the state that exercises sovereignty or sovereign rights over the place where this activity develops. Because they undermine the stability of the Earth System, they constitute a depreciation of the common heritage.
190
(d) Common Metric It is necessary to build a common standard pattern that represents the impacts (positive and negative) of each country on the structure and functioning of the Earth System. Conceptually, this new metric should be an aggregation of indicators that represent core processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth System. This new metric should be based on the best available scientific knowledge.
(e) Life-Support Unit The common standard pattern could be named “LSU – Life-Support Unit” and should be composed of an aggregation of PB indicators (“control variables”): stratosphere ozone depletion, aerosol loading, climate change, ocean acidification, biogeochemical flows (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), novel entities, biosphere integrity, land-system change and freshwater use.
(f) EcoBalance
Ecobalance is the difference between the positive and negative contributions of each State party to the maintenance of the Safe Operating Space of Humanity, that is, it is the difference between the production and consumption of LSUs. It allows us to realize the status of the relationship of each state with the common heritage, and should be the base criteria for the building of a system of contributions and compensations for its maintenance.
(g) System of Contributions The basic criteria to establish the contributions of each state for the common heritage are the different balances of each country for the maintenance of the Earth System within the limits of a Holocene-like state of the planet. All parties, depending on internal policies, might improve their balance relative to the common heritage, either through the encouragement of environmental efficiency and preservation or restoration of ecosystems. (H) An Intermediate Space
The new legal fiction of the Earth System should function as an intermediate space between State parties, where each state could understand the contributions from all the others and define its own performance strategy in relation to the common heritage, taking into account the prediction of the behaviour of other State parties.
191
(J) Agreed Value for Each LSU
Using all the best available economic information about costs of environmental damages and benefits of ecosystem services, we must construct one monetary value for the production and consumption of each LSU. This value will be defined through a Convention.
(l) Coordination Functions
With the definition of a new object of law and governance, a new or a reconverted international organization should emerge. It should have the capacity to address the Earth System as a whole, tackle the sort of challenges we are facing and assure the coordination tasks. It consists of receiving and redistributing the contributions of each State party and gathering the different interests in play, negotiating and adopting the necessary resolutions. (m) Resilience Priority
The funds resulting from the accounting system payments should be used for setting compensation and restoration agreements with countries that exercise sovereignty on priority ecosystems for the maintenance of the stable regulation of the Earth System.
(n) Historical Responsibility in the Use of Common Heritage
The different historical responsibilities are well recognized in the use of this vital heritage for humanity. The different negative and positive contributions, the previous lack of knowledge about the global and cumulative consequences of the human activities, and the recent knowledge of the role of well-determined ecosystems, whose destruction could result in abrupt consequences in the regulation of the Earth System, should be appropriately weighted in the formulation of correction factors in the redistribution system. The common purpose of restoring this heritage within the levels necessary to ensure the sustainability of future generations of all the people of the world is a common objective to all members of the human species. The past cannot preclude the construction of the future.
192
BIBLIOGRAFIA Agius, E. (1998), Obligations of Justice Towards Future Generations: A Revolution in
Social and Legal Thought”, In Future Generations and International Law, London: Earthscan Publications
Agius, E., Kim,T-C (1998) , “Introduction”, In Future Generations and International
Law, London: Earthscan Publications. Albert, M. (2007). Restructuring World Society: The Contribution of Modern Systems
Theory. In L. W. Pauly & E. Grande (Eds.), Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-first Century (pp. 48–67) Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Alvim, R. (2014). Bases da Ecologia Humana, in Alvim, R., Badiru, A., Marques, J.
(Eds), Ecologia Humana uma Visão Global, UEFS Editora. Amado Gomes, C. (2005) Textos Dispersos de Direito do Ambiente, Associação
Académica da Faculdade Direito de Lisboa, Lisboa.
Amaral, F. (1994). Apresentação, Direito do Ambiente. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional da Administração.
Ascenção J. (1992). Direito de Autor e Direitos Conexos, Coimbra Editora.
Aragão, A.(1997) O princípio do poluidor pagador, Pedra angular da política comunitária do ambiente, Boletim da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Aragão, A. (2016) Unesco Heritage: Twelve Legal Arguments in Favour of Considering
the Earth System as Natural Inatngoble Endangered Heritage, in Magalhães, P. Steffen, W. Bosselmann, K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Ayala, A. (2004) A proteção jurídica das futuras gerações na sociedade do risco global:
o direito ao futuro na ordem constitucional brasileira. In Ferreira, Heline Sivini; Leite, José Rubens Morato. O estado de direito ambiental: tendências. São Paulo: Forense Universitária.
Beckerman Wilfred. The impossibility of a theory of intergenerational justice. In Tremmel Joerg Chet; Handbook of intergenerational justice. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, 2006.
Belaïd, Sadok, (1982)“« Communautarisme » et individualisme dans le nouveau droit de la mer”, in: Colloques/Workshop Series, The Hague Academy of International Law. Consulted online on 04 November 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplcoll_ej.9789024727629.10_433.39
193
Borden, Richard (2014) Ecology and Experience, Reflections from a Human Ecological Perspective. North Atlantic Books, Berkley, California.
Borg, S. (2007). Climate Change as a Common Concern of Humankind, Twenty Years Later... From UNGA to UNSC. IUCN Academy of Environmental Law “Towards an Integrated Climate Change and Energy Policy in the European Union”. University of Malta. Retrieved from: http://www.iucnael.org
Borg, S. (2009). Key Note Speech at the unveiling ceremony of the Climate Change Initiative Monument, University of Malta, 21 April. Retrieved from: https://www.um.edu.mt/newsoncampus/features/?a=62770
Bosselmann, K. (2015). “The Rule of Law in the Anthropocene”, in: Martin, Paul et al.
(eds), In Search of Environmental Justice, Edward Elgar Publ.
Bosselmann, K. (2016) Shifting the Legal Paradigm: Earth.centred Law and Governance, in Magalhães, P. Steffen, W. Bosselmann, K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Brown,J. " Complex Ecological Systems", Complexity: Metaphors Models and Reality (Eds.:G.Cowan, D.Pines, e D.Meltzer), Reading, Massachutses: Addison-Wesley, 1994, (pp.419-449) pp.419-420.
Bruhn, J. (1974). Human Ecology: A unifying science? Human Ecology, Vol.2, No.2,
pp.105-125.
Brunnée, J. (1998). The Challenge to International Law: Water Defying Sovereignty or Sovereignty Defying Reality? In Nação e Defesa (Ed.). O Desafio das Águas: Segurança Internacional e Desenvolvimento Duradouro, 86(2), 51– 66. Lisboa: Instituto de Defesa Nacional. Retrieved from http://comum.rcaap.pt/handle/123456789/1501
Camilleri, J. & Falk, J. (1992). The End of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Cano, L. H. (1998). Las Comunidades de Propriedad Urbana. Madrid: Editorial Colex. Canotilho, J. J. (1991). Procedimento Administrativo e Defesa do Ambiente. Revista de
Legislação e de Jurisprudência, anos 123 e 124. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Canotilho, J. (2010). Estado Constitucional Ecológico e Democracia Sustentada. In Boratti, Larissa Verri, Leite, José Rubens Morato, Ferreira, Heline Sinivi. Estado de Direito Ambiental: Tendências. 2. ed., Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária.
Canotilho, J.J. (2009). Sobre o Condomínio da Terra. Porto: Earth Condominium Publications: http://condominio.webfactional.com/media/cms_page_media/18/CAN OTILHO%20sobre%20o%20Condominio%20da%20Terra.pdf
Cappelletti, M. (1975). Formazioni socialli e interessi di grupo davanti ala giustizia civile. Riv. Dir. Proc., 30, 372.
194
Charbonneau, S. (1988). La Nature du Droit de la Prévention des Risques Techniques. Paris: Revue Française de Droit Administratif.
Coleman, W. D. (2007). Globality and Transnational Policy-making in Agriculture:
Complexity, Contradictions and Conflict. In E. Grande & , L. W. Pauly (Eds), Complex Sovereignty, Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-first Century. Toronto: University Toronto Press.
Comissão Europeia (2000). Gestão dos Sítios Natura 2000: As disposições do artigo 6º
da Directiva “Habitats” 92/43/CEE.Luxenburgo: Servuço de Publicações Oficiais das Comunidades Europreias: Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_pt.pdf
Corraliza, J. A. (1997). La Psicología Ambiental y los problemas medioambientales. Papeles del psicólogo (Revista del Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos, España), (67), 26-30.
Cunhal, S. J. (2002). Responsabilidade Civil por Danos Ecológicos. Coimbra: Cadernos CEDOUA, Universidade de Coimbra.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons.
Science 302(5652), 1907–1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015.
Dirlik, A. (2001). Place-based Imagination: Globalism and the Politics of Place. In A. Dirlik & R. Prazniak (Eds.), Places and Politics in an Age of Globalisation (pp. 15–51). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fensterseifer, T. (2008) Direitos fundamentais e proteção do ambiente: a dimensão
ecológica da dignidade humana no marco jurídico-constitucional do Estado Socio-ambiental de Direito. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado.
Filipe, J. A., Coelho, M., & Ferreira, M. A. M. (2007). O Drama dos Recursos Comuns – À procura de soluções para os ecossistemas em perigo. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Fialho, A. et al(2009). A Autoridade dos Fundos Marinhos, Verbo Jurídico, Compilações
Doutrinais, Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Folke, C., et al. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio 40(7), 719–738. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y
Freitas, J. (2012) Sustentabilidade: Direito ao Futuro. 2. ed. Belo Horizonte: Editora
Fórum.
Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Southern Illinois: University Press.
Galli, A. 2015. “Footprints.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Environmental Science. Ed. E.
Wohl. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/obo/9780199363445-0046.
195
Garcia, M. G. (2010). Aspectos Éticos da Responsabilidade Ambiental, Actas do Colóquio, Responsabilidade Civil por Danos Ambientais (pp. 15). Retrieved from: http://www.icjp.pt/sites/default/files/media/icjp_ebook_responsabilidadecivilpordanoambiental_isbn2.pdf
Garcia, J. (2016). A intangibilidade do Bem Ambiental, Tese Pós-Graduação, Ciências
Jurídicas e Sociais da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba. http://acervodigital.ufpr.br/handle/1884/43727
Gautam, K. (2016), Transforming the United Nations Trusteeship Council for Protection�of the Earth System, in Magalhães, P. Steffen, W. Bosselmann, K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Garner, R. (Ed.) (2015). NASA, Satellite Tracks Saharan Dust to Amazon in 3-D. Greenbelt, Maryland: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants/#.VPIBrMYyEy4
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge. England: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1999) O Mundo na Era da Globalização, Trad. Saul Barata, Editorial
Presença, Lisboa.
Glennon, J. P. (Ed.) (1991). United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Gray, E. (2015). NASA Satellite Reveals How Much Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s
Plants. Greenbelt, Maryland: NASA's Earth Science News Team. Retrieved from: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants
Grotius, H. (1916). The Freedom of the Sea. (The bilingual edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Guedes, A. (1998). Direito do Mar. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora
Hang, P. (2003). Essays on Game Theory and Natural Resource Management. PhD thesis, Tilburg University.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hemmings, A. (2014). Time to Revisit the Antarctic Treaty, Maritime. Retrieved from http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/time-to-revisit-the-antarctic-treaty
Hibbard, K. A., Crutzen, P. J., Lambin, E. F., Liverman, D., Mantua, N. J., McNeill, J.
R., Messerli, B., & Steffen, W. (2006). Decadal Interactions of Humans and the
196
Environment. In R. Costanza, L. Graumlich, & W. Steffen (Eds.), Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (pp. 341–375). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Hucke, J. & Wollmann, H. (1998). Vollzug des Umweltrechts. Handworterbuch des
Umweltreches (Dir. Kimminich/Von Lersner/Strom). Berlin. Iturraspe, Jorge Mosset; Hutchinson, Tomás; Donna, Edgardo Alberto. Daño ambiental.
v. 1. Buenos Aires: Rubinzal – Culzoni Editores, 1999.
Kaser, M. & Wubbe, F.B.J. (1971). Romeins Privaatrecht, trans. F.B.J. Wubbe. 2nd revised and updated edn. (pp. 93–155). Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.
Kaul, I. (2013). Global Public Goods, A concept for framing the Post-2015 Agenda?. Bonn: Discussion Paper, Deutshes Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Retrieved from http://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_2.2013.pdf
Kiss, A. (1982). La notion de Patrimonie Commun de L’Humanité. Acedémie de Droit
International, Recuil de Cours, Vol.175 (TomoII).
Lévêque, G. (2002). Ecologia: do Ecossistema à Biosfera. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.
Lourenço, E. (1999). Portugal como Destino Seguido de Mitologia da Saudade. Lisboa: Gradiva
Lovelock, J (1991). Gaia – A Prática Científica da Medicina Planetar, Instituto Piaget Magalhães, P. (2005) A Razão das Andorinhas, 1985-2005, 20 Anos Quercus, Lisboa
Magalhães, P. (2007). Earth Condominium – From the Climate Change to a New Juridic Conception of the Planet. Coimbra: Edições Almedina.
Malhotra, A. (1998), A Commentary on the Status of Future Generations as Subject of
International, in Future Generations and International Law, London EarthScan Publications.
Marques, J (2014) Ecologia humana: reflexões sobre a natureza da humanidade, in Alvim,
R., Badiru, A., Marques, J. (Eds), Ecologia Humana uma Visão Global, UEFS Editora. Matos, C. (2016) The SpaceShip Earth Condo, in Magalhães, P. Steffen, W. Bosselmann,
K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Mcharg, I. (1989) Human Ecology, Environmental Education and Sustainable
Development, 9th Commonwealth Conference on Development and Human Ecology, vol. 1, Edinburg, pp. 53-56.
197
Melo, H. (2002). O Diagnóstico Pré-implantatório e os Direitos das Gerações Futuras, in Nunes, R. Melo, H. Nunes, C. Genoma e Dignidade Humana, Gráfica de Coimbra.
Melot, R. & Pélisse, P. (2008). Prendre la Mesure du Droit: Enjeux de l’Observation Statistique pour la Sociologie Juridique. Revue Droit et Societé, 60/70, 331–346. Retrieved from http://www.cairn.info/revue-droit-et-societe-2008-2-page-331.htm
Meyer, K and Newman, (Forthcoming 2018) Planetary Accounting - the Framework – comparing human activity to planetary limits. Springer.
Miller, I. & Swinney, G. (2001). Chaos Theory and Complex Dynamical Systems: Its
Emergence in Human Consciousness and Healing. Retrieved from http://www.oocities.org/iona_m/ChaosTheory/CTintro.html
Morand, A (1995). La Coordination Materèrielle: De Pesée des Intérêts à l’Ecologisation
du Droit. In Le Droit de l’Environnement dans la Pratique (p. 212). Quoted by François Ost, A Natureza à Margem da Lei, A Ecologia à Prova do Direito. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.
Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la Pensée Complexe. Paris: ESF Éditeur. Mousourakis, G. (2012) Fundamentals of Roman Private Law, Springer, London. Murillo, J. (2008). Common Concern of Humankind and its Implications in International
Environmental Law. Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law, 5(2), 133.
Nakicenovic, N. et.al (2016) Global Commons in the Anthropocene: World Development
in a Stable and Resilient Planet., IIASA Working Paper. Nykvist, B., Persson, A., Moberg, F., Persson, L., Cornell, S., & Rockström, J. (2013).
National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report. Stockholm: Naturvardsverket. Retrieved from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Nerladdningssida/?fileType=pdf&downloadUrl=/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6576-8.pdf
Nunes, R. (2002). Bioética e Deontologia profissional - Serviço de Bioética e Ética
Médica da Faculdade de Medicina do Porto - Coletânea Bioética Hoje - IV - Gráfica de Coimbra
Oldfield, F. & Steffen, W. (2004). The Earth System. In: Steffen, W., Sanderson, A.,
Tyson, P.D. et al. (Eds.), Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet under Pressure. The IGBP Book Series, (p.7). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Oosterlinck, R. (1996). Tangible and Intangible Property in Outer Space. In International Institute of Space Law, Proceedings of the 39th Colloquium of the Law of Outer Space, (pp.271–284). Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
198
Ostrom, E. et al. (1999). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284(5412), 278–282. doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278.
Ostrom, E. (2010). A Multi-Scale Approach to Coping with Climate Change and Other Collective Action Problems. Solutions, 1(2), 27-36. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/565
Pardo, A. (1967). Address to the 22nd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, UN GAOR, 22nd sess., UN Doc. A/6695 (18 August, 1967). The Origins of the 1976 Malta Initiative. International Insights, 9(2), 65–69.�
Pardo, A. (1975). The Common Heritage. Selected Papers on Oceans and World Order, 1967–1974. Malta.O.I.: Occasional Papers, nº 3.
Pauly, L. W. & Grande, E. (2007). Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political
Authority in the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pires, I. (2014) Problemas Sociais Complexos: O Olhar da Ecologia Humana, in Ronaldo
Alvim, Ajibola Badiru e Juracy Marques (eds.) ECOLOGIA HUMANA, UMA VISÃO GLOBAL. Feira de Santana: Universidade Estadual Feira de Santana, Brasil, pp. 101-121. ISBN 978-85-99799-91-8.
Pires, I; Craveiro, J (2011) Ética e Prática em Ecologia Humana, Questões introdutórias
sobre ecologia humana e a emergência dos riscos ambientais. Lisboa: Apenas Editora. http://ecologiahumanafcsh.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/2/3/16236920/tica_e_prtica_da_ecologia_humana.pdf
Pires, Iva; d’Angelis, Igor; Carvalho, Ana Cristina (2017). Análise Bibliométrica da
Produção Científica na Área da Ecologia Humana, Revista Ecologias Humanas, nº3: 5-15. ISSN 2447-3170. http://sabeh.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Revista-SABEH-Volume-3-n-3-art1.pdf
Pires, Iva e Craveiro, João (2010). Past and Future of Human Ecology, in Pires, Iva M; Gibert, Morgane; Hens, Luc Studies in Human Ecology, Liber Amicorun C Susane, M. Nazareth, Ph. Lefèvre-Witier, International Centre for Human Ecology. Ha Noi: Publishing House for Science and Technology, 259 pag. Registered Ref. No: 833-2010/CXB/026-4/KHTNCN, pp.26-44.
Pureza, J. M. (1998). O Património Comum da Humanidade: Rumo a um Direito Internacional da Solidariedade? Porto: Afrontamento Editora.
Pontara, G (1996), Ética e Generations Futuras, (trad. Do original italiano de 1995 por Isabel Riera), Barcelona, Editorial Ariel.
Prieur, M. (1987). La Déréglamentation en matière d’Environment. Révue Juridique de
L’Environment (RJE), 3, 320.
Rakhyun, E. K. & Bosselmann, K. (2013). International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene: Towards a Purposive System of Multilateral Environmental
199
Agreements. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, 285–309. doi:10.1017/S2047102513000149
Rangel, P. C. (1994). Concertação, programação e Direito do Ambiente. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the
Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved form http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Rockstrom, J. (2014). Planetary Boundaries and Human Opportunities: The Quest for
Safe and Just Development on a Resilient Planet. Open Online Course offered by the SRC in partnership with SDSN. Edu. November 17, 2014 – February 3, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.sdsnedu.org/learn/planetary-boundaries-and-human-opportunities-past-course-fall-2014
Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in
International Relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139–174. The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706885
Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389. Reprinted in J.E. Stiglitz (Ed.) (1966). The Collected Scientific Papers of P.A. Samuelson, II, 1223–1225. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Santos, V. (2001), A Humanidade e o seu Património, Reflexões Contextuais sobre Conceptualidade Evolutiva e Dinâmica Operatória em Teoria das Relações Internacionais, Lisboa, Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas.
Shelton, D. (2009). Common Concern of Humanity. Iustum Aequum Salutar, 1, 33–40.
Retrieved from http://epa.oszk.hu/02400/02445/00012/pdf/EPA02445_ias_2009_1_033-040.pdf
Schelling, T.C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press. Schmid, A. (1995). The Environment and Property Rights Issues. In Bromley, (Ed.), “The
Hand Book of Environmental Economics”. Blackwell Publishers Inc. Shackelford, S. J. (2008). The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal, 27, 101–120. Retrieved from: http://www.iew.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/dwr/iew/content/e3870/e3985/e4139/e6410/sel-topic_5-shackleford_ger.pdf
Shiva,V. (1999). Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. New York: South
End Press. Silva, V. P. (1989). Para um Contencioso Administrativo dos Particulares. Coimbra:
Edições Almedina.
200
Silva, L.(2002) Autonomia da Pessoa e determinismo genético, in Nunes, R. Melo, H. Nunes, C. Genoma e Dignidade Humana, Gráfica de Coimbra.
Sobrino, J. M. (2012). Património é Uma Ideia (...) Património é Algo que é Necessário
Conservar no Interesse de Todos. Jornal Quercus, 50(Jan-Fev), 4–5. Retrieved from http://www.quercus.pt/images/PDF/QA/QA50.pdf
Soromenho-Marques,V. (1994) - Regressar à Terra - Consciência Ecológica e Política de
Ambiente . Edições Fim de Século. Soromenho-Marques, V. (2006). O Património Incorpóreo como Meta-Património.
Algumas Notas de Reflexão, Actas dos XII Cursos Internacionais de Verão de Cascais, coordenação José Tengarrinha (pp. 57–62). Cascais: Câmara Municipal de Cascais e Instituto de Ciências e Estudos Socais.
Sousa, M. T. (1998). A Protecção Jurisdicional dos Interesses Difusos, Temas actuais do
Direito Processual Ibero-Americano/ Compêndio de relatórios e conferências apresentadas nas XVI Jornadas Ibero-Americanas de Direito Processual (p. 383). Rio de Janeiro.
Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P. D., et al. (2004). Global Change and the Earth
System: A Planet under Pressure. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag. Steffen,W. Rockstrom, J.,Costanza,R. (2011) How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can
Transform Our Approach to Growth, Volume 2: Issue 3: May 20 (http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com)�
Steffen, W., et al. (2015a). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science Magazine, 347(6223). doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
Steffen,W. (2016) The Planetary Boundaries Framework, Defining a Safe Operating
Space for Humanity, in Magalhães, P. Steffen, W. Bosselmann, K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Steiner, D.; Markus, N. (2003). Human ecology: fragments of anti-fragmentary views of
the world. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Stern, N. H. (2006). Executive Summary. In Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (p.1). Retrieved from : http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, P. & Stroud, L. (2012). Common Heritage of Mankind: A Bibliography of Legal Writing. Malta: Fondation de Malte.
Taylor, P. (2016), The Common Heritage: Constructive Utopianism, in Magalhães, P.
201
Steffen, W. Bosselmann, K. Aragão, A., Soromenho-Marques, V. (Eds.), SOS Treaty, The Safe Operating Space Treaty- A New Approach to Managing Our Use of the Earth System, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Tolba, M. (1991). The Implications of the “Common Concern of Mankind” Concept in Global Environmental Issues. Revista IIDH, 13, 237–246. Retrieved from: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/librev/rev/iidh/cont/13/doc/doc27.pdf
Weeramantry, C. G. (2000). Sustainable Development. In BEURIER, J. P. et. al. (Eds),
New Technologies and Law of the Marine Environment (p.195). London : Kluwer Law International (International Environmental Law and Policy Series).
Woodward, R. (2005) Money and the spatial challenge – Multi-level governance and the
“territorial trap” in Governing Financial Globalization: International Political Economy and Multilevel Governance Andrew Baker, David Iudson, Richard Woodward, New York, Routledge/Ripe
Yearley, S. (2004). Ecological Problems, in George Ritzer (ed.) Handbook of Social
Problems, a Comparative International Perspective, London, Sage Publications, pp. 87-100.
Weiss, Edith Brown. Intergenerational equity: a legal framework for global
environmental change. In Weiss, Edith Brown (ed.). Environmental change and international law: new challenges and dimensions. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1992. Disponível em: www.vedegylet.hu/.../Brown%20Weiss%20-%20Intergenerational%20equity%20UN....
202
OUTRAS FONTES
CBD – convention on Biological Diversity Global Commons UNEP- Law Division http://staging.unep.org/delc/GlobalCommons/tabid/54404/Default.aspx SOER (2015). The European Environment – State and Outlook (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer UNEP Secretariat (1991). II Meeting of the Group of Legal Experts to Examine the
Concept of the “Common Concern of Mankind” in Relation to Global Environmental Issues. Geneva, March 20–22. Revista IIDH. Vol. 13, 253–258. Retrieved from: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/librev/rev/iidh/cont/13/doc/doc29.pdf
UNESCO (1997). Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genome-and-human-rights/
UNESCO (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00006 United Nations (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf United Nations (1988). Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations
of Mankind. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm UN SYSTEM TASK TEAM ON THE POST-2015 UN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
(2013). Global Governance and Governance of the Global Commons in the Global Partnership for Development beyond 2015.
UNCLOS (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf UNCLOS (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
203
PARTE II Common Home of Humanity Survey
Building the first 3-years institutional strategy together
8.1. O Projeto
Nascido no Porto em 2007, o projeto Condomínio da Terra teve desde a sua origem o
objetivo de procurar soluções teóricas e práticas para o problema da inadequação do
conceito de soberania refletir a realidade global, una e interdependente do Sistema
Terrestre. Este projeto transformou-se na Casa Comum da Humanidade que hoje é uma
parceria internacional que junta juristas e cientistas ligados às ciências naturais e sociais
de todo o mundo no âmbito de uma parceria informal entre o Curso de Doutoramento em
Ecologia Humana da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Universidade do Porto, Universidade
de Coimbra, University of Auckland e o Instituto International de Derecho y Medio
Ambiente de Madrid, University de Siena (Indicadores ecológicos), Australian National
University, Planetary Boundaries/Stockholm Resilience Centre (Ciências do Sistema
Terrestre), University of Curtin in Perth Australia, e o Global Footprint Network
(Metricas). Foi igualmente iniciada uma colaboração próxima com a ESA - Agência
Espacial Europeia.
O resultado desta já longa investigação aponta como origem estrutural da tragédia
resultante do uso desregulado do Sistema Terrestre, o facto do Sistema Terrestre não
existir juridicamente, cujo o resultado dá origem a que ser utilizado como res nullius.
Essa será mesmo a primeira causa estrutural da crise ecológica.
A motivação aglutinadora desta equipe multidisciplinar de académicos de diferentes
áreas, foi o reconhecimento de que uma nova abordagem jurídica global é um pressuposto
para a construção de uma solução que nos permitirá construir a Casa Comum, onde a
interligação entre direitos humanos e meio ambiente pode encontrar um locus de
representação social. A visão do papel central do direito e dos juristas nesta missão
pluridisciplinar, começa a encontrar ecos um pouco por todo o mundo. Na recente
204
Conference Global Pact for the Environment, que teve lugar na Universidade de
Columbia, Nova York, o Prof. Jeffrey Sachs afirmou: “This initiative for a Global Pact
for the Environment calls on the world’s leading jurists to help craft an agreement that in
my view should have two strong bases,” said Sachs. “One is the legal framework rights
to environmental safety, climate safety, protection of biodiversity, standards of behavior
and clear methods for protecting those rights. The second should be a clear global
governance based at the United Nations.” Said Sachs, “We have a UN Security Council
for War and Peace. We need, in my personal view, a UN Security Council for the
Environment.”
8.2. Metodologia da pesquisa
A formação deste grupo de pessoas que suporta neste momento o projeto “Casa
Comum da Humanidade” não obedeceu a um plano prévio de seleção, antes pelo
contrário, emergiu de um processo a que poderíamos chamar de seleção natural. Aliás, a
ter existido alguma seleção, essa terá ocorrido apenas na fase elaboração das listas de
convidados para oradores. Depois do contacto inicial possibilitado por estes eventos, foi
no exercício da partilha de pontos de vista e interesses comuns que resultou a formação
de um grupo pluridisciplinar com origens espalhadas um pouco por todo o mundo, que
irá em breve dar origem a um grupo formal, a constituição de uma nova pessoa coletiva:
a Casa Comum da Humanidade.
Como este processo foi de resultado de processo involuntário, nunca o grupo se
tinha debruçado sobre o seu próprio processo de formação, tentando perceber qual
motivação e compreensão detalhada das suas crenças, atitudes, valores e interesses que
levaram ao encontro destes atores sociais neste contexto social específico.
No sentido identificar os sentimentos e valores subjacentes que estiveram na base da
formação espontânea deste grupo, de mapear as disponibilidades e aptidões individuais,
bem como de perceber as expectativas que cada participante tem relativamente à Casa
Comum da Humanidade, decidiu-se realizar uma pesquisa qualitativa com os seguintes
objetivos preliminares:
205
• Compreensão preliminar de perceções individuais; • Identificar quais os valores comuns e o significado pessoal do projeto; • Grau de envolvimento; • Questões que estão em todas as mentes.
E os seguintes objetivos específicos:
• Identificação de pontos fracos e pontes fortes do projeto;
• Averiguar os motivos que levaram ao envolvimento de cada um neste projeto;
• Conhecer a opinião dos envolvidos sobre o percurso já realizado;
• Identificar expectativas para fundar a construção de uma estratégia comum;
• Descobrir fatores que influenciam a perceção externa da Casa Comum da
Humanidade;
• Identificar a motivações;
• Competências e valor que cada um traz ao processo; • Da interação construir um sentido para o próprio projeto;
• Estabelecer uma estratégia institucional de 3 anos.
Para a realização desta pesquisa foi enviado por email um conjunto de questões, cuja
ordem e redação permaneceram invariáveis para todos os entrevistados, combinando
perguntas abertas e fechadas, sem limitação de espaço, onde o entrevistado tem a
possibilidade de desenvolver as suas ideias sobre a questão proposta.
Uma vez que o “entrevistador” está também envolvido no projeto, e que o seu
contributo é da maior relevância para interagir com os restantes participantes na obtenção
dos resultados, ele próprio preencheu o questionário.
O grupo focal foi selecionado entre os autores do Livro SOS- Treaty, e outros
elementos provenientes do Steering Committee da Casa Comum da Humanidade. No
total a pesquisa foi enviada para 24 pessoas (18 membros do Steering Commitee e 6
membros do Board). No total foram recebidas 11 respostas. As respostas reforçaram as
convicções já existentes e ajudaram a esclarecer os pontos de vista e os pontos fortes de
quem respondeu à pesquisa.
Para isto, criou-se um formulário, que na essência pretendia dar criar uma perceção
comum relativamente a estes assuntos:
206
• Strength
• Weaknesses
• Short-term challenges
• Mid-term challenges
• Long-term challenges
• Overall definition of sucess
• Current responsability
• Valuable input/potential role
8.3. Perfil dos Entrevistados
ALESSANDRO GALLI��With 10 years’ experience on sustainability issues and indicator related projects, Alessandro’s research focuses on analyzing the historical changes in human dependence on natural resources and ecological services through the use of sustainability indicators and environmental accounting methods. Currently, Alessandro is a Senior Scientist and the Mediterranean-MENA Program Director at Global Footprint Network. Previously, he has been working as technical advisor with the Emirates Wildlife Society (EWS- WWF) on the Al Basama Al Beeiya (Ecological Footprint) Initiative in the United Arab Emirates. Alessandro holds his PhD degree in Chemical Sciences from Siena University. Alessandro is co-author of several publications including 30 articles in peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Global Environmental Change, Ecological Economics, Ecological Indicators and Biological Conservation, as well as WWF's Living Planet Report 2008, 2010 and 2012. He is also member of the Editorial Board of the Journal Resources: Natural Resources and Management and acts as reviewer for several academic journals. Alessandro was a MARSICO Visiting Scholar at University of Denver, Colorado, USA, in April 2011. Key Research Interest: ecological footprint, human dependence on natural resources and ecosystem services, global environmental changes (including their socio-economic drivers), land use, resource management, sustainability, sustainability indicators, environmental accounting.
ALEXANDRA ARAGÃO��Maria Alexandra de Sousa Aragão is Professor of European Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra, Portugal since 1996. She has a Master’s degree in European Integration and a PhD in Public Environmental Law. She is holder of Jean Monnet modules on European Governance and European Environmental Law. She represents Portugal at the European Observatories on Natura 2000 Network and Water Framework Directive. She is member of the ‘Avosetta’ group of experts in European Environmental
207
Law and of the Advisory Board of the European Environmental Law Forum. She has authored numerous works on environmental law and governance, and her research interests are mainly focused European environmental law and the core environmental principles: polluter pays, precaution, integration and high level of protection. A list of publications and research activities can be found in: https://apps.uc.pt/mypage/faculty/aaragao/pt .
�
ANA BARREIRA��Ana Barreira has a degree in Law from the Complutense University has two master's degrees in Law: in Environmental Law (University of London) and in International Legal Studies (New York University). She is a founding member of the Spanish non-profit organization, Instituto International de Derecho y Medio Ambiente de Madrid, where she has developed his professional activity in several areas of environmental and political law. Since 2005 she is the lawyer of Oceana Europa, an international NGO specialized in the protection of the oceans. She has worked on projects related to environmental and political legislation in England, Albania, Mexico, Portugal, Republic of Montenegro, Republic of Serbia and Slovakia. He was part of the drafting team of the Spanish environmental framework (1995) and provided legal advice to the Spanish Ministry of the Environment for the Spanish Presidency of the EU mainly for the preparatory process for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Participated in international negotiations, such as Climate Change, PrepComms for WSSD, the UNECE meeting for Rio +20. FERNANDO PEREIRA��Fernando Rodrigues Pereira has a degree in Public Relations / Business Communication from Universidade Fernando Pessoa (Porto, Portugal), where he also taught in Communication, Competitive Intelligence, Public Affairs and Lobbying for about 10 years. Graduate at Univ. Aix Marseille in Competitive Intelligence (Marseille, France). Professional experience: He has held management positions in multinational companies such as McCann Erickson and D & E / Weber Shandwick and in national agencies such as NTM and Press à Porter. Since 2014, he has been the leader of the Prestomedia Group in Portugal, a Euro-latam communication group, and is a Senior Consultant at CCCP - Porto's Consulting and Communication Company. (https://www.facebook.com/cccp.pt/) In the field of public affairs and communication, during the last 20 years, he has developed and directed various projects and campaigns as a consultant and advisor to various public bodies and personalities. He is Senior Consultant at RetiSpain for the Portuguese market since 2014. Currently, since 2016, he is the Executive Director of CCCP - Communication and Consulting Company of Porto
208
FRANCISCO FERREIRA��Francisco Ferreira is a Professor with the Department of Sciences and Environmental Engineering of the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the New University of Lisbon, Portugal, and a member of CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research. His main research interests are within the areas of air quality and climate change. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and coordinated several national and international research projects. He was President of Quercus, an environmental non-governmental organization from 1996 to 2001 and a member of the national board until 2011. He was a member of the National Council on Environment and Sustainable Development and of the National Water Council. Until the end of 2015, and for almost ten years, he was the author and presenter of a daily show on national public TV entitled “The Green Minute”. He is currently the President of ZERO – Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System.
KLAUS BOSSELMANN��Klaus Bosselmann, PhD, is Professor of Law at the University of Auckland. He is the founding director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law and teaches in the areas of international environmental law, global governance, environmental constitutionalism and legal theory. He has served as a consultant to the OECD, the EU and the governments of Germany and New Zealand, was a legal advisor to the Earth Charter Drafting Committee and has been a visiting professor at leading universities in Europe, North America, Brazil and Australia. Prof Bosselmann is Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law Ethics Specialist Group, Co-Chair of the Global Ecological Integrity Group and executive member of other international professional bodies. He has authored over a dozen books including the award-winning Im Namen der Natur (1992), When Two Worlds Collide (1995), Ökologische Grundrechte (1998), Umwelt und Gerechtigkeit (2001) The Principle of Sustainability (2008), National Strategies for Sustainability (2014) and Earth Governance (2015).
NATHALIE MEUSY� Nathalie Meusy is, since November 2008, the Head of the Coordination Office on Sustainable Development at the European Space Agency (ESA) in the Strategy Department attached to the Director General. Prior to the creation of this office, she launched the sustainable development initiative at ESA in 2007. She has, since then, developed the first framework policy on sustainable development for ESA, to be applied in its environment and energy activities, its programme activities and in the governance and ethics of the whole organisation as well as the first report on sustainable development for a space agency in Europe. Nathalie Meusy obtained Law degrees from the Paris XI and Besançon Universities and studied thereafter Social Sciences at La Sorbonne University (Paris). She started her career in journalism and intellectual property related to photographic work (Magnum Photos Agency). Thereafter,
209
Ms. Meusy joined ESA in 1987 as a lawyer-administrator in the Human Resources Department. She supported, as Head of Social Policies, all ESA establishments and directorates from a legal and social point of view for15 years. About ESA: This is a Research and Development inter-governmental organisation in charge of space projects and programmes at European level, which now counts 22 Member-States (20 member-States in the EU plus Norway and Switzerland), 9 other EU Member States have Cooperation Agreements with ESA. Canada also takes part in some programmes under a Cooperation Agreement.
SANDRA ENTEIRIÇO��Sandra Enteiriço has a degree in Economics - Postgraduate in Finance for Executives and several courses in behavioral area (time management, leadership, assertive communication). She has held public functions, especially in the environmental area, since the beginning of his career twenty years ago. He started the professional course in the management of urban waste at the General Company of Development, S.A, responsible for the management of about 60% of urban waste in Portugal. In 2001 she was advisor to the Secretary of State for Planning of the XIV Constitutional Government, and from 2014 to 2017 served as advisor to the Minister of the Environment. In 2008, she was involved in the area of Climate Change, having served as Chief Economist in the Technical Secretariat of the CECAC (Executive Committee of the Commission on Climate Change) and the Portuguese Carbon Fund and, after 2012, as manager of the managed Environmental Funds by the APA, IP, namely the Portuguese Carbon Fund, the Water Resources Protection Fund and the Environmental Intervention PAULO MAGALHÃES��Paulo Magalhães is a researcher at the Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences CICS.NOVA (CICS.NOVA.FCSH/UNL). He has a degree in Law from the Catholic University of Porto and a post-graduation in Environmental Law at Coimbra University. Today is in PhD Programme “Human Ecology” at Universidade Nova de Lisboa where he works in the concept of “Common Intangible Natural Heritage of Humankind”. He is the author and coordinator of the Earth Condominium Project that propose a new concept to managing our use of the Earth System.
PRUE TAYLOR��Prue Taylor teaches environmental and planning law to graduate and undergraduate students at the School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, NZ. She is the Deputy Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law and a long standing member of the IUCN Commission of Environmental Law and its Ethics Specialist Group. Prue’s specialist research interests are in the areas of climate change, human rights, environmental and commons governance, ocean law and policy, property rights and environmental ethics. She has authored numerous books and articles in these areas. Her book, An Ecological Approach to International Law: Responding to the Challenges of Climate Change (Routledge), won a NZ Legal Research Foundation Prize.
210
In 2007 she received an outstanding achievement award from the IUCN in recognition of her contribution, as a world pioneer on law, ethics and climate change.
WILL STEFFEN��Will Steffen is a Councillor on the publicly-funded Climate Council of Australia that delivers independent expert information about climate change, and is an Earth System scientist at the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Canberra, working with the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) program, and is a member of the ACT Climate Change Council. From 1998 to mid-2004, Steffen served as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, based in Stockholm, Sweden, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. His research interests span a broad range within the fields of climate and Earth System science, with an emphasis on incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and on sustainability and climate change, particular in the context of urban areas.
211
8.4. RESULTADOS
Highlights of the survey
• Uniqueness of mission
– truly global, – interdisciplinary, – innovative governance model, – legal construct based on science, – Earth System-based solutions, – heritage aspect, – redefining global commons
• Reason to support (real or potential):
– necessary, – different, – sustainability through structural changes, – resonate at personal level, – complements existing global negotiation frameworks, – applied Earth jurisprudence, – simple and sound, – respectful (to ES) – global leadership model, – new perspective on human self-organization, – utopia, – compelling framework, – merit of ethics policy & law, – possible solution to all environmental externalities, – science-based Earth System perspective.
• Strengths:
– intuitive, – ethical, – holistic, – embraces legality, – multi-disciplinary, – multi-stakeholder, – scientific, – evidence-based, – innovative
212
• Weaknesses:
– resources, – finance, – communication and PR, – organizational structure, – lack understanding of risks and threats
• Challenges:
• legal independence and set-up (ST), • financial security (ST), • demonstrable capacity (ST), • capturing global attention and diverse support base (SMT), • keeping them and mobilizing effective action (MLT), • clarity in meaning of global governance (MT), • engagement with progressive states and strategic allies (SMT), • credibility and acceptability of ESAF (MLT), • redefining global commons and creating coalitions (MLT), • legal recognition of the ES (MT), • handling neo-liberal economic paradigm (MT), • avoid polarizing politics? (LT), • catalyze change (LT), • maintain momentum and relevance of mission without exhausting
key people (LT), • Staying inspirational but realistic
• Overall definition of success:
– legal recognition of the Earth System as an intangible human heritage, – global buy-in of Earth System legislation, – credibility to advise governments (scientific, legal and diplomatic), – full independence, – Accountable, transparent strong inclusive leadership, – integrity and reputation, – impactful outreach (awareness and education), – UN membership, – number of states who sign-up to the mission
• Available skill set:
– Earth Science, – Indicators and measuring sustainability, – Law and Governance, – Philosophy and ethics, – UNFCCC negotiations, – Strategies and International networks
213
• Active gaps:
– Strategies and international networks, – finance and business development, – communication, – education
214
8.5. ANEXOS
215
1
NAME:AlessandroGalli
INSTITUTION:GFNandCHH
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:Boardmember,internationalcoordinator(supposedly)andscientificadvisor.
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
IsupportCHHasIcametorealizeinthepastfewyearsthataddressingsustainabilitycanonlybepossibleiftheenabling/structuralconditionsthataffectourdecisionmakingprocessisaddressedfirst.Mysenseisthatoursocietyfinallyhasmostofthescientificknowledgeneededtounderstandtheproblemandidentifysolutionsbutourgovernanceandlawsystemiscompletelyunequippedtobeabletofavor“sustainablechoices”.So,weneedtochangetheruleofthegame.
TheideaofconsideringtheEarthSystem(initsfunctioningstate)asaheritageofmankind,tobelegallyprotectedandregulated/managed.Thisfeaturehasinit2veryattractive–forme–concepts:
1)thefactthatitproposesanewgovernancesystemsthatgoesbeyondnationalsovereignitiesanddivisions
2)awaytospeakaboutglobalcommonasapositive(ratherthannegative)sumgame.
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Inthisinitialphase,Iaimtoactastheinternationalcoordinatoroftheinitiative,thusspreadingthenewsaboutCHHandcreateanetworkofsupportiveorganizations.Ialsoplantosupporttheinitativeasscientificadvisorthusworkingonrelatedwrittendocumentationandvariousprojectproposals/applications
Yes,InasecondphaseoftheCHH–oneCHHisanindependententityupabdrunning–IaimtocontributetotheworkaroundthedevelopmentoftheESAFframework.IwouldliketoworktomakethescientificcaseforanEarthSystemAccountingFrameworkandaftercollaboratewithvariousresearchgroupsaroundtheworldforitsdevelopment.
Tobecrediblescientifically,legallyandfromadiplomaticviewpointtobeabletoleadthewaytowardsacompletere-organizationoftheworldgovernancesystem(aswellastoleadtheimplementationofarelatedscientificresearchagenda).
3
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshorttermandinthelong-term?
Shorttermsuccess(1-2yearsfromnow):CHHisestablishedasanindependentglobalorganization,hascorefundingsecuredtooperatefor3-5yearstocomeandadedicatedcorestaffof3fulltimeequivalents.Acoalitionofstatesisstartingtoshapeup(2-3coregovernmentsdeeplyandactiveltyengaged)byendof2018/early2019.
Mediumtermsuccess(3-7years):theglobalcommonsarebackinthepoliticalagenda(notjustclimateissues)andatthecoreofcivilsocietydiscussions.Acoalitionofstates(atleast10states)isestablished,whicharesignatoryoftheCHHStatutesandactivelylobbyinfavouroftheCHHmessage/goal.SessionsoftheUNgeneralassemlyareheldtostartdiscussingtheCHHgovernanceframeworkandtheresearchneedstomaketheESAFreal(IamenvisioningaprocesssimilartotheonewhichledtotheidenfiticationandagreementoftheSDGsandassociatedindicators).Anetwork/coalitionofresearchinstitutionsiscreated,tostartworkingontheESAFproperdevelopmentandimplementation.
Longtermsuccess(7to14yearsfromnow):theEarthsystemisrecognizedasalegalobject(i.e.,CHM)andagreementisreachedatUNlevel(orequivalent–shouldtheUNnotexistanymore)overtheEASFsystem.TheCHH“goals”replacetheSDGsandrepresenttheglobalpost-2030agenda.
4
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Beingperhapstoovisionarytobeacceptablebycurrentgovernmentleaders.Fundraisingandmedium-termfinancialstability.
1)Scientificintegrityandrobustnessinsupportofacorelegalconstruct
2)transparencyandinvolvmentofasmanystakeholdergroupsandminoritiesaspossible
3)Easyandeffectivecommunication
2018CHHisestablishedasanindependentglobalorganizationandhascorefundingsecuredtooperatefor3-5years(withadedicatedcorestaffof3fulltimeequivalents)
5
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2020Anetwork/coalitionofresearchinstitutionshasbeenset-up,tostartworkingontheESAFdevelopmentandimplementation
2019byearly2019acoalitionofStatesisstartingtoshapeupwithsupportfrom2-3coregovernmentssecured(theyaresignatoryoftheCHHStatutes).
Shortterm:financialstability/viabilityandacceptancebygovernments
Longterm:acceptancebygovernments
1
NAME:AlexandraAragão
INSTITUTION:FDUC
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:Activesupporter
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
IsuppotbecauseIbeliveitisadifferentapproachtotheususalenvironmentalprotection/natureconservation.
Theintuitiveunderlayingethicalstand.
Helptodraftthenextlegalsteps.
Againhelpindesigningthelegalpropositions/statementsoftheCHH.
Thenumberanddiversityofcollectivesuppoorters(states,governmentalandnongovernmentalorganizations).
2
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Geetingeverybody’sattentiondespitethepresenttheoverflowof(mostlyjunk)information.
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
DefinelegalstatutesoftheEarthSystemincludingtherighttobeinacertainecologicalcondition)
Getformalrecognitionofthelegalstatutes(UN).
Createasetofindicators/indexofpositiveandnegativecontributionstothegood/badconditionoftheearthsystem(differentfromEcologicalFootprint)
Createascoreboard.
Gettingtheattentionofpersons/peoples/media/academia/states/organizationstomaketheneedofanewlegalstatutefortheearthsystemanobviousneed.
3
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018
UNrecognition/supportofthenewlegalentity
2019
UN/States/organizations/peoplessubscriptionoflegalstatutes
2020
Publicationoftheindexandscoreboard.
Getinternationalattention/mediaandsocialmediaattention.
Developingacredible/meaningfull/acceptableindex.
1
NAME:AnaBarreira
INSTITUTION:Director-InstitutoInternacionaldeDerechoYMedioAmbiente-Madrid
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:MemberSteeringCommittee
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Ihavebeenworkinginthefieldofenvironmentallawinthelast24yearsandIfindthisinitiativenecessarytoprovideactionandsolutionstoEarthdepletion.
IIDMAisanenvironmentallaworganization.TheconceptofCHHisofgreatimportanceinordertoadvancetoprovidingsolutions.
ThelegalconceptwhichembracesCHH.
Allmyexperienceinthefieldofenvironmentallaw,internationallawaswellasmyexperiencemanagingNGOs
2
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonce
CHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Yes,asfirstIcansupportinitsestablishmentandafterinitsdevelopment.
Theassemblyofmanydiverseprofiles.Itisatrulymultidisciplinaryorganizationwhichis
whatourCHHrequires.
Transparency,strongleadershipbutatthesametimeinclusiveleadership,dialogue,
goodcommunicationstrategy,confidenceamongtheirmembers,avoidanceoflinksto
politicalorganizations,strongindependence….
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
LAckofresources.
Weakcommunicationamongitsmembers.
- Firsthavinglegalpersonalitywithastronginstitutionalsetting- Avoidtobeidentifiedwithpoliticians- Atractprestigiousindependent“globalthinkers”
4
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018
Acquiringlegalpersonality
thePortoConference
Havingagoodcommunicationspackage
2019
BecomingawellknowninstitutionandthatinternationalorganizationsstartconsideringtheconceptofCHHasanimportantareatheymustworkon.
2020
TheUNGAmakesadeclarationontheCHH
1
NAME:FernandoRodriguesPereira
INSTITUTION:CHH
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:CHHmemberofSteeringCommitteeBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
IbelieveinthepathwayproposedbyCHH
"OurCommonHomeasaLegalConstructbasedonScience"
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
.organizationalskills
.skillsonStrategy,Communication,lobbyingandpublicaffairs
Yes,becausetherewillbeaworkplantobefollowedandIcanputallmyskillsonhelpingCHHtoreachthesegoalsandobjectives
• Thecapacitytolookandattacksomecentralproblemswithanoveralleffectperspective:scientific,economic,legalandantropologicalperspectives.
Shortterm:createanorganizationcapabletoproduceworkorientedtoourmajorgoals
Longterm:beoneofthevoicesthatcaninfluencethechange
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Itsbirthwithsustainablebasisthatallowstoconcentrateitsstrenghtsonattackingtheproblemswithoutanyotherconcerns,likethefinancialsustainabilityoftheorganization
• Credibility• Strength• Reputation
4
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018
Congress
Positionning
Swedishprize
2019
Consolidationofthestructure
Globalizationofthemessage
2020
Reputation
Short-term:toformateambuiltonitsscientificmeritwithveryfavorableconditionstowork
Longterm:builtawellknownreputationthatwillallowtoinfluencetheglobaldecision-makers
1
NAME:FernandoRodriguesPereira
INSTITUTION:CHH
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:CHHmemberofSteeringCommitteeBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
IbelieveinthepathwayproposedbyCHH
"OurCommonHomeasaLegalConstructbasedonScience"
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
.organizationalskills
.skillsonStrategy,Communication,lobbyingandpublicaffairs
Yes,becausetherewillbeaworkplantobefollowedandIcanputallmyskillsonhelpingCHHtoreachthesegoalsandobjectives
• Thecapacitytolookandattacksomecentralproblemswithanoveralleffectperspective:scientific,economic,legalandantropologicalperspectives.
Shortterm:createanorganizationcapabletoproduceworkorientedtoourmajorgoals
Longterm:beoneofthevoicesthatcaninfluencethechange
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Itsbirthwithsustainablebasisthatallowstoconcentrateitsstrenghtsonattackingtheproblemswithoutanyotherconcerns,likethefinancialsustainabilityoftheorganization
• Credibility• Strength• Reputation
4
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018
Congress
Positionning
Swedishprize
2019
Consolidationofthestructure
Globalizationofthemessage
2020
Reputation
Short-term:toformateambuiltonitsscientificmeritwithveryfavorableconditionstowork
Longterm:builtawellknownreputationthatwillallowtoinfluencetheglobaldecision-makers
1
NAME:FranciscoFerreira
INSTITUTION:ZERO–AssociationfortheSustainabilityoftheEarthSystem
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:MemberoftheBoar4d
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
-TheprojectisfullyinlinewiththegoalsofZERO;
-Theconceptmakessensetobediscussedandimplementedandmayenablefurtherdevelopmentsatthegloballevel;
-itcanbeseenasacomplementaryframeworktocurrentinternationalnegotiationsofenvironmentalcriticalissues;
-Itenablesdifferentpeopleandinstitutionstobuildanewmodelofunderstandingandpossiblerulingoftheworld;
-Theutopiangoal
-Thediverseinstitutionsthatmayjoin
-Theinnovativeapproach
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
- ThecapacitytocreateaglobalefforttoimplementanewinnovativeapproachtodefinetherelationshipsbetweenStates,communities,organisations.
-Tohelpthebureaucraticprocessesinthefirststages
-Theknowledgeofinternationalnegotiations
-ZEROwillconcentratemoreinthegoalsanddiscussionsleavingitsbureaucraticsupportthatishelpingtheprojectfornow
3
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
- Getinternationalinstitutions,particularlycountries,tojoin
ST:becomealegalentitywithcleargovernancerulesandobjectives
LT:tobeheardbyinternationalinstitutionsandtohaveitsproposalsundertakenbyStates;tobeconsideredasaninternationalcredibleentitytoframetheworkofenvironmentalglobalproblems
4
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
-Haveextremelycredibleandfeasibleobjectiveswithapathwaythatmakessenseandistransparentforalltheparticipantsthatmayjoin
-Becomeendorsedbyothernotableinstituions/countries
-Setupaframeworkofactionthatisinspirationalandrealistic
2018–GreatConference
2019–Severalcountriesandinternationalwell-knownandcredibleinstitutionsaspartoftheCCH
2020–Starttobecomeapartnerattheinternationalnegotiationslevel
5
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
ST:togetasufficientnumberofinternationalmembersthatwouldsupportthevoiceandactionoftheCCH
LT:berecognisedinternationally
1
NAME: KlausBosselmann
INSTITUTION: UniversityofAuckland
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:Co-Chair,ScientificAdvisoryBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
CHHisappliedEarthjurisprudence,promotesasimpleandsoundideaandcompliments
similiarinitiativestowardsecologicalapproachestolawandgovernanceIaminvolvedwith
(EcologicalLawandGovernanceAssociation,PlanetaryIntegrityProject,UNDialogue
HarmonywithNature,eco-constitutionalism).
TheideaofEarthasascientific,physical,ecologicalandethicalwholeistimelyand
incraasinglypopular.ItfitstheAnthropceneandthegrowingconcernforlong-termand
truly“global”governance.CHH’smostattractivefeatureisitsinterdisciplinaryapproach,
i.e.fromEarthscientiststoenvironmentallawyersand–atleastpotentially–political
institutions.ThismakesCHHcredible.
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonce
CHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Myexpertiseinapproachinglawandgovernancefromanecologicalperspective(rather
thantheotherwayround).Theparadigmshift“fromenvironmentallawtoecological
law”(OsloManifesto)hastakenholdinmainstreamenvironmentallawandwill,over
time,changemethodologyanddirectionsofdecision-makingatalllevels(global,
regional,nationalandsub-national).However,wearetalkingdecadeshere,notjust
years.ItisimportantforCHHthereforetoappealtothoseinterestedincontextual,long-
termdecision-making(globalgovernanceinstitutions,thinktanks,foundations,civil
societynetworks,progressivegovernmentalagencies)ratherthancurrentpowercenters
(bigstates,corporateandfinancesector).
Iseemyroleasanadvisor(fromansocialsciencesandactivistsperspective)and
facilitatorbetweenCHHandotherstakeholdersandintitiatives(seeabove).
Itsinterdisciplinaryapproachandexpertiseasmentioned.CHH’sreal(=political)strength
dependsonfindingstrategicallies:internationalorganisations(e.g.UNESCO,EU
agencies),globalNGOsandindividualgovernmentsorgovernmentalagencies.Finding
strongallieswillbecrucialforCHH’ssuccess.
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Thenumberandsignificanceofstrategicallies.Intheshort-term:NGOs,UNESCO,Portuguesegovernment.Inthelong-termseveralprogressivestates(e.g.Norway,Finland,Netherlands,Germany,Malta,NewZealand)andUN.
Fundingisabigchallenge.Oneortwosponsorsmaybeneededtorunasmallsecretariat,getPRgoingandorganizeconferences.Importantstarting-pointisamoreelaboratewebsite(showingpartners,eventsandwaystogetinvolved).Anydifficultiesassociatedwithfundingaretoduetotheshort-termeconomicparadigmthatmostfundingisnstitutionsarecaughtupwith,butshouldnotdeterusfromtrying.Goodideastaketime.TheideaofEarthasalegalentitycertainlytakestimetosinkinandtounderstanditspracticalrelevance.ThismakesitimportanttoseeCHHasaneducationalprojectratherthanaquickfixresponsetothepredicamentofglobalenvironmentaldegradation.
4
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
1. Securefundingbase.2. Attractcrediblepartnersandallies(seeabove).3. Runsuccessfulconferencesandeducationalinitiatives(inclsocialmedia!).
2018Conference:academic,butinvolvingpoliticalinstitutions.Establishasmallsecretariat.
2019Newpartners:UNESCO,governmentalagencies.
2020UN-initiative:reviewofSDGsorUNGAresolution
5
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
Short-term:securingasolidfundingbase
Long-term:overcomingeconomicforces(dominatingtheUN,EU,virtuallyallgovernments)thatwillunderminethecredibilityofCHHonceitbecomesmoreprominent.Bestremedy:findsomecrediblepartners(seeabove).
1
NAME:NathalieMeusy
INSTITUTION:EuropeanSpacialAgency–HeadoftheCoordinationOfficeonSustainableDevelopment
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:MemberSteeringCommitteeBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
BeingpartoftheCHHcomeswithmypersonalcommitmenttowardstherespect,the
preservationandtherestorationofourspaceship,planetEarth.Ihavealwaysbeeninfavour
ofanecologicalhumanism.Theroleofhumanbeings,thesolespeciesthatcandecideonits
extinction,iskey.IstronglybelievethatsomethingcanstillbedonetohelptheEarthsystem
toberevitalised.Itisamatterofchangeinmindsets,amatterofaccountability,amatterof
consciousnessbeitindividualorcollectivelevel.Thisconsciousnesswasbornewhenhumans
cameintospace.Thisisalsothereasonwhy,beingpartoftheEuropeanSpaceAgency,Ican
bringspaceroleandtoolsintothedebatetosupporttheCHHanditsactionstowardsthe
Environment.ThiscanalsoconstituteastrongpositionforEuropetoshowitsleadership
andlaunchaworld-widecooperation.
ThemostattractivefeatureofCHHisthenewvisionconcerningourspaceoperating
systemandthesolutionsthatcanderivefromit.Itperfectlyillustratesanewformof
internationalcooperationwhere,throughanetworkofcommittedentitiesand
individuals,theprincipleof“fromglobaltolocal”willbeturnedintoconcretepolicies
andactionsintheinterestofthewholehumankind.Awarenessactionsforsupporting
thepromotionoftheSOSTreatyshouldbedeployedinalllayersofthesociety.
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonce
CHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
MycontributiontotheestablishmentoftheCHHismyengagementtowardstheEarthandits
EnvironmentandthewayIexpressitthroughmultipleactionsofawarenesstowardsinstitutions
orthegeneralpublic(citizens)inwriting,talkingorexchangingwiththem.I,inparticularwrote
theintroductionoftheSOSTreatybook.ButasalawyerandsociologistIamalwaysattentiveto
theevolutionsandtrendsinoursocietiesandtrytoproposeinnovativesolutionsforabetter
governance.IhavebeenlaunchingtheSustainableDevelopmentactivityatESAandwas
consideredasapioneerinthissector,IcanhelpCHHfoundersandmemberstobepioneersfor
anewgovernanceoftheEarthsystem.Lastly,asastaffoftheEuropeanSpaceAgency,Ihave
manynetworksandcontactsthatcanbemobilisedandusedtdefendtheCHHcause.
OncetheCHHwillbeanindependentlegalentity,Iimaginebeingmorecommittedin
myactionasmyrolewillbemoredefinedandtheorganisationmorestructured.
ThestrengthofCHHisitsdiversity,itsmulti-disciplinaritythatneverthelessconverge
towardsasingleobjective:protecttheEarthSafeOperatingSystem.Anobjectivethat
shouldalwaysfederateandneverdivide.
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Thegovernanceofitwith,inparticularitsfinancing.
4
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018
2019
2020
Intheshort-term,thekeysuccesswouldbetoobtaintherecognitionoftheEarthsystemasIntangibleHeritageofHumanity,andtrytogetsomeinternationalprizes/awardstocatchtheattentionatinternationallevelfortheninthelonger-termtobeabletoundertakeactionsatinter-governmental,governmentalandlocallevelsandmobilisingandjoiningforcesindedicatedprogrammes/projects(withregions,cities,universities,schools,associations,etc.)
1
NAME:PauloMagalhães
INSTITUTION:Zero/CHH
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:ChairoftheSteeringCommitteeBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Themostattractivefeatureofthecondominiummodelisthefactthatitmakespossiblethesymbioticharmonizationofindividualandcollectiveinterests,whichwastheoretically(fortheeconomyandforlawalso)animpossibility.TheCHH,bymakingascaleadaptationofthismodel,makespossiblethecoexistenceofaglobalcommongoodasalegallyrecognizedcommonheritage(thefavorablestateoftheTerrestrialSystem)inanoverlappingwaywiththeexistenceofsovereignandindependentstates.Asaconsequenceofthisrecognition,thecreationofafairsystemofmaintenanceandmanagementoftheuseofthisglobalgoodisinevitable.Whatseemstomemostattractive,apartfromtheglobalanddeepinterdisciplinaryapproach,isthisapparentsimplicityofthemodelanditsexplanatorycapacityofreality.ThefactthatCHHitisalegalconstructionbasedonthelatestknowledgeofscienceonthefunctioningoftheEarthSystem,wecanconsider it a rational representation,but it doesnot cease tobeequally grounded in the intuitiveperceptionoftheexistenceofsomethingglobalfromwhichalltheliveandhumanspeciesdepends,
Theconvictionthatanevolutionarymomenthasarrived,andthereisaninevitableandstructuralshiftinthewayhowhumansocietiesorganizethemselvesinthecontextofalimitedplanetofwhichtheyarepartof.Thisshiftnecessarilyrequiresanaturalevolutionfromtheactualstate-centricinternationalsystemtoanewoneinwhichtherecognitionoftheexistenceofarealglobalcommon,whichescapetotheterritorialdimensionofstates,requirehisrecognitionwiththegoaltobemanagedascommongoodonwhichwealldepend.Becauseitisnotatechnologicalchallenge,discoveryorconquest,butratheranintrinsicchallengeofahumanself-organization,thisevolutionisthegreatestofthechallengesforwhichmankindhaspassedCHHpresentsitselfasamodelofthebasicorganizationofacondominium,inwhichtheexistenceofcommonpropertyisoverlappedwithprivateproperty,andinthisway,theinterdependencebetweencommoninterestsandprivateinterestsisorganized.IbelievethattheapplicationofthismodelonaglobalscalehasamuchgreaterabilitytoportrayandexplainthesuperimposedrealitybetweenaglobalandinterdependentEarthSystem,andahumansocietyorganizedthroughindependentstates.BecauseCHHhasthiscapacity,becauseit'sgroundedinscienceandthealreadyconstructedlaw,itseemstometobeaviableandrealisticutopia.
2
thatcrossesallpeoples,cultures,andreligionsinallgeographiesoftheplanet.Wecanconsideritamodernscientificandlegalrepresentationofthepreviouslyinexplicable"mothernature".ThetrulyCommonHeritageofHumanity.
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Tocontinuethispathoftheoreticalconstructionandconstructionofpracticaltoolsthatallowustoconcretizethisevolution,alwaysmaintainingtheprudentdoubtandthehumilityoflearningwitheveryone.
No.Ifeveryinefillthatmyconributionstillbeingnecessary,Iwillcontinuebuildingthehomeandtheconcept.
ThepossibilityoftheCommonHumanitybecomingnotonlyafocalpointfortheexchangeofknowledgebetweenscientistsofvariousareasofknowledgebutaboveallaspaceofshelter,bond,andidentityofaglobalcitizenship,whichrequiresaLocuswheretoanchortheItsexistence.IfCommonHousetranslatesinpracticaltermsintoaheritagethatunitesusall,thisnewentitycanbecomethespacewherecommoninterestsarediscussedanddeveloped,andwheretheseandfuturegenerationshaveanidentificationandbelonging.
3
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Tobeabletoassertitselfnotonlyasoneamongsomanyproposalsforasolution,buttoberecognizedasonethatisproperlygroundedinscienceandlaw,andwhichhasagreatermarginofprogressionandabilitytoexplaintherealityinwhichwelive.Theonethatrepresentstheclaimedevolutionandthatisscientificallyrealisticandhumanlyviable.
Short-term-Constructionofanadministrativeteam,financialsupport,organizationoftheinternationalconferencewithallnecessarypromotionalmaterial,andinternationallaunchofthecampaignfortherecognitionoftheterrestrialsystemasaWorldHeritageSite.
Medium-term-RecognitionofthefavorablestateoftheEarthSystemasaWorldHeritageSite
Long-Term-ConstructionandinstitutionalizationofamanagementsystemfortheuseandmaintenanceofthefavorablestateoftheTerrestrialSystem,witheconomicvisibility.
4
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Funding
Scienceevidence
Diversityossupporters/statesandindivdual7associative
2018majorconferenceinPorto,introducingCHHtotheworld
2019-submissionoftheEarthSystemascommon,intangiblenaturalheritagetotheWorldHeritageCommissionofUNESCO
2020-haveaspreadingbaseofsupport,bothinhumanresourcesandinfunding,andpromotongtheevolutionoftheESAF
5
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
Short-term-SolidfundingbaseLong-term–Toknowalwaysbeinganelementofpromotingandmakingevolution,withoutmakingbigdisruptions.
1
NAME:PrueTaylor
INSTITUTION:UniversityofAuckland
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:contributortoonepublication
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
CCHconceptualisestheproblemswefaceinanewandcompellingmanner.CCHhasbegunthetaskforframingethical,policyandlegalresponsesinamannerthat(whileverychallenging)hasgreatmeritandthereforepotential.CCHhelpsustocommunicatemoreeffectivelyandthereforetoadvocateasacollective.
ThecollectiveeffortthatweareengagedinandthefactthatCCHhasaninterdisciplinaryperspectiveonglobalecologicalgovernance.Inaddition,CCHiscurrentlycomprisedofpeoplefromarangeofdiversecultures–ienotexclusivelyAnglo/American.Thishelpsfortheexchangeofideasandperspectives.
IthinkIcanbestcontributetodiscussionaboutethical/legalconceptsandtheirpotentialdeveloppolicyandlaw.Inparticular,Iamabletocontributetotheintegrationofnewconceptsofthecommonsandcommoning,withpolicyandlaw.Myexperienceinworkingonclimatechangeissuesandlawoftheseaissueswillalsobehelpful.
2
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
IthinkIambestabletohelpthroughthecommunicationofroleandworkofCCH,andthroughadvocacy.
Itsability,togetherwithothereffectivepartnerswithlongstandinginternationalcredibility,tocommunicateaclear/inspiringandeffectiveconceptforglobalecologicalgovernance.
EvidenceofgrowinginterestandsupportfortheideasofCHH.Partnershipwithotherorganisationsthataresupportive.Aregularandgrowingprofileatrelevantinternationalfora.Contributionsfromagrowingarrayofdisciplines.Anevolvingdiscourseaboutecologicalresponsibilitiesatalllevels:global,international,regional,national,local.Thiswouldincludesignsofmovingbeyondtraditionallegalandpolicyresponses,andapreparednesstotryoutnovelconcepts,asopportunitiesemerge.
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Maintainingmomentumandenergy,withoutexhaustingkeypeople.KeepingfaithasthetasksofCHHrequirealongtermperspective.Developingandmaintainingpoliticalsupport–wherenecessaryandhelpful.EnsuringthatthemissionofCHHremainscoherentandfocused.
Idon’tfeelthatIhavetheexperience/expertisetohelpfullyanswerthisquestion.
4
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018(note–IwouldprobablyaddthesamethingsasKlaushashere,but…inmyviewthesupportofsomekeynationstatesandtheirleadershipwouldbecritical.TheycanfacilitateawillingnesstodiscussandexploreCHHratherthantreatitwithsuspicionanddismissit.
2019
Bothshortandlongterm:Maintainingmomentum/energyandfocuswhileatthesametimefurtherdevelopingtheconceptandensuringsupport-withoutdestructivecompromise.
1
NAME:SandraEnteiriço
INSTITUTION:PortugueseGovernment–CabinetoftheMinisteroftheEnvironment
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:RepresentativeofthePortugueseMinistryofthe
Environment,accordingtotheProtocolsignedin15thJuly2016
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Theawarenessoftheneedtofindanewglobalgovernancemodeltoaddressthecurrentthreatsoftheplanet,namelyclimatechangeandtheother“planetboundaries”.
Theproposalofanewglobalgovernancemodelthatmaysolvealltheenvironmentalexternalitiesatonce.
2
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Portugalisthefirst“state”tojointhismission.Wehopewecanhelpeitherbyprovidingthe“state”visionandbyjoiningother“states”toCHH.
Thedevelopmentoftheprojectwillrequiredifferentcontributionsofthemembers.
Theinnovativeconcept.
3
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
ThepositionofUnitedStatesregardingclimatechange.Thiswillmakeglobalcommunityfocusonsolving“theclimatechangeissue”andbringlessavalilabilityto“moveforward”.
Canbe,inotherhand,astrenghtinthefuture.
Intheshort-term:
-theapplicationtothe“GlobalChangesFoundation”
-theabilitytocommunicatetheconceptofCHHinawaythateveryonesmayunderstand
Inthelong-term:
- ThecapacitytomoveCHHtoUnitedNationsandgatherStatesinthisvision
4
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
-Scientificcredibility;
-InvolvementoftheStates;
-Communicationcapacity.
2018
- GlobalChangesFoundation- “Presentation”toUN- JoinotherStates
2019
- “Startthediscussion”oftheintegrationinUN- JoinStates
2020
- integrationinUN
5
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
Shortterm:joinStates,financing
Long-term:Definitionofthetermsoftheimplementationoftheglobalgovernancemodel.
1
NAME:WillSteffen
INSTITUTION:Emeritus(retired)Professor,TheAustralianNationalUniversity;andSeniorFellow,StockholmResilienceCentre
ROLEINTHECURRENTACTIVITIESOFCHH:ChairofScientificAdvisoryBoard
Q1.Whatistheonemainreasonforyou/yourinstitutiontosupportCHH?
Q2.WhatisthemostattractivefeatureofCHH?
Q3.Whatdoyouthinkis/willbeyourvaluableinputtotheestablishmentofCHH?
IamanEarthSystemscientist,soamveryinterestinginasystemsperspectiveofthefuture
oftheEarth.Thatis,whattrajectoriesoftheEarthSystemarepossibleinthenextfew
hundredsorthousandsofyears,whatdotheymeanforthefutureofhumanity,andwhat
rolescanhumansocietiesplayinsteeringthefuturetrajectoriesoftheEarthSystem?In
short,whatsortof“CommonHomeforHumanity”dowewant,andhowdowemanageour
relationshiptotherestoftheEarthSystemtoensureweachieveacommonhomethatwe
want?
Forthefirsttime,wehavehereinCHHaconceptandapproachthatdoesNOTtryto
downscaletheEarthSystem,orbreakitupintosmallercomponents.Itrecognisesthe
EarthSystemASASINGLEWHOLE,asinglecomplexsystemthatprovidesthelifesupport
systemforhumanity.Thisisaprofoundlydifferentconceptandapproachtoothersthat
trytodealwithglobalenvironmentalissues(e.g.,theUNSDGs).
2
Q4.Doyouseeyourrole/contributionevolveinCHHfromwhatitisnowtowhatitwouldbeonceCHHisanindependentlegalentity?Ifyes,couldyouexplainthisinonesentence?
Q5.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinethestrengthofCHHasanorganisation?
Q6.What,accordingtoyou,woulddefinesuccessofCHHintheshort-termandinthelong-term?
Intheshort-term,gettinglegalstatusfortheEarthSystem.Thiswouldahugeachievement,andaturningpointinhumanity’srelationshipwithitshomeplanet.Inthelongterm,successoftheCHHwouldbemeasuredbyitsinfluenceonapproachestomanagehumanactivitiestorespectandbestewardsoftheEarthSystemandallofitslife.
ToprovidescientificsupportintermsofourimprovingunderstandingofthedynamicsoftheEarthSystem,potentialfuturetrajectoriesofthesystem,andtheroleofhumanactivitiesininfuencingthesetrajectories.Also,I’minvolvedinthefurtherdevelopmentoftheplanetaryboundariesapproach,whichprovidesaguidancesystemformanagingourrelationshipwiththeEarthSystem.
No,Iwillcontinuetoprovidescientificsupportandadvice.
TheCHHcouldbecomeafocalpointforscholarsandpractitionersfromallwalksoflifewhounderstandtheconceptoftheEarthSystemasasingle,complexsystemandwhoarecommittedtomanaginghumanity’srelationship(i.e.,thatis,managingus)tomaintainastableandaccommodatingstateofthesystem.
3
Q7.WhatdoyouseeasthesinglebiggestchallengefacedbyCHHtoday?
Q8.WhatarethethreemainareasthatCHHshouldfocusontoestablishitsintegrityasanindependentgloballyreputableorganisation?
Dealingwiththedominantneo-liberaleconomicparadigmthatisdestructivetolifeingeneralandisnowthreateningthestabilityoftheEarthSystemasawhole(thatis,ourcurrenteconomicsystemhasalreadypushedtheEarthSystemoutoftheHoloceneandintotheAnthropocene).
BealwaysbasedonasoundscientificunderstandingoftheEarthSystem.
FocusitsinitialactivitiesongaininglegalrecognitionfortheEarthSystem,whichinitselfwillinvolveatremendouseducationaleffort.
Becomeaglobalhub,inPorto,forreputableactivitiesaroundtheworldthathavecommonaimswithCHH
4
Q9.WhatdoyouseeastheoneimportantCHHengagementand/orachievementin
Q10.What,accordingtoyou,wouldbethechallengesthatarelikelytofaceCHHintheshort-termandlongterm?
2018–majorconferenceinPorto,introducingCHHtotheworld
2019–submissionoftheEarthSystemascommon,intangiblenaturalheritagetotheWorldHeritageCommissionofUNESCO(itmaynotsucceedbutwouldatremendouseducationalendeavour).
2020–haveaspreadingbaseofsupport,bothinhumanresourcesandinfunding,allowingmanymoreeducationalandlegalactivities
Thereisoneverybigpotentialchallenge–ifCHHachievesmuchhigherstatusandinfluenceininternationalthinking,thedominantworldpowerstructuresandeconomicplayerswillcomeafteritandtrytodiscreditit.SoweneedtothinkofwhererisksandthreatslieastheCHHconceptdevelops.
